Final RTP Appendix.Pdf

APPENDIX

If information is needed in another language, please contact the PVPC Title VI Specialist by phone at (413) 781-6045.

Casoestainformaçãosejanecessáriaem outro idioma, favor contar o EspecialistaemTítulo VI do PVPC pelofone 413-781-6045.”

Si necesitainformaciónenotrolenguaje, favor contactar al especialista de MassDOTdelTítulo VI al 413-781-6045.

如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（PVPC）《民权法》第六章专职人员，电话413-781-6045

如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯系馬薩諸塞州交通部（PVPC）《民權法》第六章專職人員，電話413-781-6045

2020 Update to the Regional Transportation Plan

Appendix Final Report – July 23, 2019

Prepared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

For the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization

Pioneer Valley MPO Members Name Title Stephanie Pollack Secretary and CEO of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Jonathan L. Gulliver Administrator of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division Walter Gunn Chair of the Pioneer Valley Executive Committee Mayor David Narkewicz Chair of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority Advisory Board Mayor Richard Kos Mayor of Chicopee Mayor Alexander Morse Mayor of Holyoke Mayor Brian P. Sullivan Mayor of Westfield Mayor Nicole LaChapelle Mayor of Easthampton Carmina Fernandes Ludlow Board of Selectmen Roger Fuller Chesterfield Board of Selectmen Richard Sullivan Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts Alternates Mayor Domenic Sarno Mayor of Springfield Mayor William C. Reichelt Mayor of West Springfield John Martin Southampton Board of Selectmen

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) Jeff McEwen Federal Highway Administration Peter Butler Federal Transit Administration Sandra Sheehan Administrator of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority James Czach Chair – Pioneer Valley Joint Transportation Committee

Prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. The views and opinions of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS RTP BROCHURE 1 2020 RTP SURVEY 3 RTP PROJECT LISTING – MAP KEY 6 CHAPTER 5 - REGIONAL PROFILE APPENDIX 19 A. Physical Characteristics ...... 19 B. Highway ...... 21 1. Access ...... 21 2. Functional Classification ...... 22 3. Jurisdiction ...... 25 4. Bridges ...... 26 5. Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 26 6. Average Daily Traffic Counts ...... 29 7. Mode Share ...... 33 8. Scenic Byways ...... 33 C. Passenger Transportation ...... 34 1. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Bus and Paratransit Service ...... 34 2. Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) Paratransit Service ...... 40 3. Regional Coordinating Councils ...... 41 4. Commercial Scheduled Bus Service ...... 42 5. Shuttles, Charters and Taxis ...... 43 6. Ridesharing ...... 45 7. Park and Ride ...... 46 8. Passenger Rail ...... 48 D. Intelligent Transportation Systems ...... 49 1. I-91 ITS Project ...... 49 2. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority ITS Equipment ...... 51 3. 511 ...... 51 4. Real Time Traffic Management ...... 51 5. Smart Work Zone Management ...... 51 6. EZDriveMA ...... 51 E. Non-Motorized Transportation ...... 52 1. Complete Streets ...... 54 2. Bicycle Facilities and Initiatives ...... 55 3. Pedestrian Circulation ...... 64 4. Advocacy and Local Organizing Committees ...... 66 5. Recreational Activities ...... 67 6. Massachusetts Pedestrian Plan ...... 68 7. MassDOT's ADA/Section 504 Transition Plan ...... 68 F. Aviation...... 69 1. Public Airports ...... 69 2. Private Airports ...... 73 G. Transportation of Goods ...... 74 1. Trucking ...... 75 2. Rail ...... 78 3. Air Freight ...... 80 4. Pipeline ...... 81 H. Internet Infrastructure ...... 82 1. Last Mile Program ...... 82 2. Middle Mile Program ...... 82 I. Population ...... 83 1. Trends ...... 83 2. Ethnic and Racial Diversity ...... 86 3. Age ...... 86 J. Housing...... 88 1. Household Growth ...... 88 2. Size...... 88 K. Employment ...... 92 1. Type ...... 92 2. Growth ...... 93

2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan

3. Median Household Income ...... 95 L. Vehicle Registration and Ownership ...... 97 CONGESTION APPENDIX 101 1. Recurring and Non-Recurring Congestion ...... 101 A. Regional Roadway Congestion Severity ...... 101 1. Methodology ...... 102 2. Congestion Severity Descriptions ...... 103 3. Findings ...... 104 4. Transit Congestion Severity Ranking ...... 110 B. Pioneer Valley Region Bottlenecks ...... 111 1. Introduction ...... 111 2. Analysis ...... 111 LIVABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE APPENDIX 115 A. MEPA Requirement for GHG Emissions Assessment ...... 115 B. Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Updated Climate Projections / Resilience Analysis ...... 116 CHAPTER 13 - FUTURE FORECASTS APPENDIX 119 A. Population ...... 121 B. Households ...... 122 C. Employment ...... 123 1. Labor Force Model Development Overview ...... 123 2. Employment Projections Overview ...... 123 3. Summary of Regional Demographic Projections ...... 127 D. Regional Employment Scenario ...... 127 1. Summary ...... 129 E. Regional Travel Demand Model ...... 129 1. Network and Zone Development ...... 130 1. Trip Generation ...... 130 3. Trip Distribution ...... 131 4. Mode Usage ...... 131 5. Trip Assignment ...... 132 6. Forecasts ...... 132 F. 2010 Base Year Model ...... 132 1. Network...... 132 2. Transportation Analysis Zones ...... 133 3. Socioeconomic Data...... 133 4. Regionally Significant Projects ...... 134 5. Estimated Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 141 6. Future Traffic Volume Projections ...... 141 PIONEER VALLEY PROJECT UNIVERSE 149

Index of Tables INDEX OF TABLES...... II INDEX OF FIGURES ...... III TABLE 5-1 – DRIVING DISTANCE AND TIME FROM SPRINGFIELD ...... 21 TABLE 5-2 – REGIONAL INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS ...... 22 TABLE 5-3 – MILES OF ROADWAY BY COMMUNITY AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ...... 24 TABLE 5-4 – MILES OF ROADWAY BY COMMUNITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ...... 25 TABLE 5-5 – NUMBER OF BRIDGES BY COMMUNITY AND BY ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ...... 26 TABLE 5-6 – 2000 - 2012 ESTIMATED URBAN DAILY VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL IN THE PIONEER VALLEY (IN THOUSANDS) ...... 28 TABLE 5-7 – MASSDOT PERMANENT COUNT STATIONS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 29 TABLE 5-8 – PERCENT CHANGE IN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...... 30 TABLE 5-9 – PVTA BUS ROUTE RIDERSHIP ...... 37 TABLE 5-10 – PVTA BUS FLEET ...... 38 TABLE 5-11 – PVTA ANNUAL PARATRANSIT RIDERSHIP ...... 39 TABLE 5-12 – PVTA SERVICE AREA COUNCILS ON AGING AND SENIOR CENTERS ...... 40

2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan

TABLE 5-13 – REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCILS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 41 TABLE 5-14 – EXISTING ON AND OFF-ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION (DRAFT) .. 61 TABLE 5-15 – PROPOSED BIKEPATHS FOR THE PVPC REGION (DRAFT) ...... 62 TABLE 5-16 – BRADLEY AIRPORT OPERATIONAL STATISTICS...... 70 TABLE 5-17 – BARNES AIRPORT OPERATIONAL STATISTICS ...... 71 TABLE 5-18 – WESTOVER AIRPORT OPERATIONAL STATISTICS ...... 72 TABLE 5-19 – NORTHAMPTON AIRPORT OPERATIONAL STATISTICS ...... 74 TABLE 5-20 – SHIPMENTS WITHIN, FROM, AND TO MASSACHUSETTS BY DOMESTIC MODE SHARE ...... 75 TABLE 5-21 – CRITICAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY MPO ...... 76 TABLE 5-22 – PIONEER VALLEY REGION POPULATION CHANGE...... 84 TABLE 5-23 – RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE BY COMMUNITY ...... 85 TABLE 5-24 – TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS, 1980-2017 ...... 89 TABLE 5-25 – HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1960 TO 2017 ...... 90 TABLE 5-26 – NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE AND SIZE, 2017 ...... 91 TABLE 5-27 – PIONEER VALLEY REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, 2017 ...... 94 TABLE 5-28 – MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ...... 96 TABLE 5-29 – REGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY – 2000...... 98 TABLE 5-30 – REGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY – 2015...... 99 TABLE 5-31 – PERCENT CHANGE IN REGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLES, 2000-2015 ...... 100 TABLE 8-1 – CORRIDORS WITH SEVERE CONGESTION ...... 105 TABLE 8-2 – CORRIDORS WITH SERIOUS CONGESTION ...... 106 TABLE 8-3 – CORRIDORS WITH MODERATE CONGESTION ...... 107 TABLE 8-4 – CORRIDORS WITH MINIMAL CONGESTION ...... 108 TABLE 8-5 – TRANSIT SEVERITY DATA ...... 110 TABLE 8-6 – CONGESTION BOTTLENECKS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 114 TABLE 13-1 – DATA SOURCES OF FORECASTS FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION...... 120 TABLE 13-2 – POPULATION FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 124 TABLE 13-3 – HOUSEHOLD FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 125 TABLE 13-4 – EMPLOYMENT FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 126 TABLE 13-5 – PROJECTED CHANGE IN PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 127 TABLE 13-6 – PVPC SCENARIO FOR PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT CHANGE ...... 128

Index of Figures FIGURE 5-1 – PIONEER VALLEY REGION MAP ...... 20 FIGURE 5-2 – ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED...... 27 FIGURE 5-3 – AVERAGE ANNUAL TRAFFIC FOR I-91 ...... 30 FIGURE 5-4 – AVERAGE ANNUAL TRAFFIC FOR I-391 ...... 31 FIGURE 5-5 – AVERAGE ANNUAL TRAFFIC FOR I-291 ...... 31 FIGURE 5-6 – AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS ...... 32 FIGURE 5-7 – AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FOR RURAL ROADWAYS ...... 32 FIGURE 5-8 – HAMPDEN AND HAMPSHIRE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRAVEL MODES ...... 33 FIGURE 5-9 – SCENIC BYWAYS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ...... 34 FIGURE 5-10 – PVTA SERVICE COMMUNITIES AND SCHEDULED BUS ROUTES ...... 36 FIGURE 5-11 – INTERCITY BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 44 FIGURE 5-12 – PARK AND RIDE LOT AVERAGE DAILY OCCUPANCY 2010-2018 ...... 47 FIGURE 5-13 – ITS EQUIPMENT ALONG I-91 IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 50 FIGURE 5-14 – MUNICIPAL STATUS OF COMPLETE STREETS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 55 FIGURE 5-15 – PVTA BIKES ON BUS USAGE ...... 59 FIGURE 5-16 – MASSDOT REST AREAS ...... 77 FIGURE 5-17 – TRUCK STOP AVERAGE DAILY OCCUPANCY 2017-2018 ...... 78 FIGURE 5-18 – PROJECTED REGIONAL POPULATION BY AGE GROUP ...... 87 FIGURE 5-19 – PROJECTED PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IN SELECT AGE GROUPS...... 87 FIGURE 5-20 – PIONEER VALLEY REGION LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT...... 95

2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan

iii

FIGURE 5-21 – PER CAPITA INCOME, 1980-2017 ...... 96 FIGURE 8-1 – CONGESTED CORRIDORS AND BOTTLENECKS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ...... 109 FIGURE 8-2 – MAP ANALYSIS G1 BUS ROUTE AND CMP CORRIDOR 78 IN SPRINGFIELD...... 112 FIGURE 8-3 – MAP ANALYSIS B43 BUS ROUTE AND CMP CORRIDOR 15 IN NORTHAMPTON ...... 113 FIGURE 13-1 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFIED BY THE I-91 VIADUCT STUDY ...... 137 FIGURE 13-2 – NEAR- AND MID-TERM I-91 IMPROVEMENTS (SOUTH SECTION) ...... 138 FIGURE 13-3 – LONGMEADOW CURVE MID-TERM IMPROVEMENTS OF I-91 ...... 138 FIGURE 13-4 – AGAWAM: MODIFIED DIAMOND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS ...... 139 FIGURE 13-5 – SPRINGFIELD: PLAINFIELD STREET IMPROVEMENTS ...... 140 FIGURE 13-6 – ESTIMATED FUTURE VMT ...... 141 FIGURE 13-7 – PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON AREA BRIDGES ...... 142 FIGURE 13-8 – PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON THE MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE ...... 143 FIGURE 13-9 – PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON INTERSTATE 91 ...... 143 FIGURE 13-10 – PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON INTERSTATE 291 ...... 144 FIGURE 13-11 – AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON INTERSTATE 391 ...... 145 FIGURE 13-12 – PROJECTED ARTERIAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE NORTHEAST REGION ...... 145 FIGURE 13-13 – PROJECTED ARTERIAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE NORTHWEST REGION ...... 146 FIGURE 13-14 – PROJECTED ARTERIAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE SOUTHEAST REGION ...... 146 FIGURE 13-15 – PROJECTED ARTERIAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE SOUTHWEST REGION ...... 147

2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan

RTP BROCHURE

RTP Appendix

2020 RTP SURVEY

RTP Appendix

RTP PROJECT LISTING – MAP KEY Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 1 V_07 I-91 Viaduct Agawam Rotary Improvements Visionary 0 0 $156,600,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt (No Build) 2 V_05 I-91 Viaduct Bikeway Forest Park to Springfield Visionary 0 0 $19,750,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt Riverwalk (No Build) 3 V_02 New I-90 Interchange Alternative 2 Blandford Maintenance Visionary 0 0 $29,500,000.00 (currently under study) Facility 4 V_03 New I-90 Interchange Alternative 3 Blandford Service Plaza Visionary 0 0 $34,000,000.00 (currently under study) 5 V_04 I-91 Viaduct Longmeadow Curve Improvements Visionary 0 0 $212,750,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt (Peanut) (No Build) 6 V_14 I-91 Viaduct Route 5 Shared Use Path Laurel Hill Road to Visionary 0 0 $300,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt Forest Glenn Road (No Build) 7 V_12 I-91 Viaduct South End Bridge/River Road Bike/Ped Visionary 0 0 $2,000,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt Connection (No Build) 8 V_15 I-91 Viaduct Springfield Downtown Pedestrian Visionary 0 0 $100,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt Improvements (No Build) 9 V_01 Regionwide - Transit UMass Maintenance Facility- Articulated Visionary 0 0 $19,600,000.00 buses 10 V_13 I-91 Viaduct BBHOF Riverfront Bridge Ped Visionary 0 0 $100,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt Improvements (No Build) 11 V_11 I-91 Viaduct Enhanced Riverfront Bike/Ped Connections Visionary 0 0 $1,000,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt

RTP Appendix 6

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 12 V_10 I-91 Viaduct Enhanced Under-Viaduct Pedestrian Plazas Visionary 0 0 $500,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt (No Build) 13 V_09 I-91 Viaduct Plainfield Street Improvements Visionary 0 0 $76,000,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt (No Build) 14 V_06 I-91 Viaduct South End Bridge Upgrades Visionary 0 0 $206,250,000.00 Improvements - Pref. Alt (No Build) 15 Paratransit Regionwide SAT\CO Retrofit to Paratransit Transit $2,750,000.00 16 608787 Williamsburg CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MILL RIVER Bike 0 29 $14,400,000.00 GREENWAY" SHARED USE PATH 17 608236 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF PM 66.5 $10,043,653.00 DAMON ROAD, FROM ROUTE 9 TO ROUTE 5, IONSTRUNCLUDES DRAINAGE SYSTEM REPAIRS & SLOPE STABILIZATION AT THE NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL (old#180525) 18 400103 Westfield WESTFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-25- Bridge $9,000,000.00 006, ROUTE 10/202 (SOUTHWICK ROAD) OVER THE LITTLE RIVER 19 600935 Holyoke HOLYOKE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS, H-21- Bridge $9,545,000.00 014, ROUTE 141 (APPLETON STREET) OVER SECOND LEVEL CANAL & H-21-020 OVER FIRST LEVEL CANAL 20 601701 Wales WARE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-05-003, Bridge $10,532,000.00 MASS CENTRAL RR OVER ROUTE 9 & 32 (EAST MAIN STREET) 21 603024 Southampton SOUTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S- Bridge $1,352,400.00 19-024, VALLEY ROAD OVER MOOSE BROOK

RTP Appendix 7

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 22 601504 Palmer RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 32, FROM PM 0 18 $3,570,304.00 765 FT. SOUTH OF STIMSON STREET TO 1/2 MILES SOUTH OF RIVER STREET (PHASE I) (1.63 MILES) (TFPC $6,134,080) HPP Earmark $2,500,000 23 604212 Ware WARE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-05-004, Bridge $1,725,000.00 ROUTE 9 (EAST STREET) OVER THE WARE RIVER 24 602911 Chicopee CONNECTICUT RIVERWALK & BIKEWAY Bike 75 27 $3,122,734.00 CONSTRUCTION, FROM BOAT RAMP NEAR I-90 TO NASH FIELD (2.5 MILES) INCL NEW BRIDGE OVER OVERFLOW CHANNEL 25 602912 Chicopee CHICOPEE RIVER RIVERWALK MULTI-USE Bike 25 21.5 $4,000,000.00 PATH CONSTRUCTION, FROM GRAPE STREET TO FRONT STREET (NEAR ELLERTON STREET) (1 MILE) 26 604049 Hadley HADLEY- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-01-017, Bridge $3,864,000.00 NORTH HADLEY ROAD OVER ROUTE 116 27 604136 Monson/Palmer MONSON- PALMER- BRIDGE Bridge $3,784,000.00 REPLACEMENT, M-27-007=P-01-007, STATE AVENUE OVER THE QUABOAG RIVER 28 604155 Southwick RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON PM 0 18.5 $3,600,000.00 ROUTE 10/202, COLLEGE HIGHWAY (NORTHERLY SECTION) FROM THE WESTFIELD/SOUTHWICK T.L. TO TANNERY ROAD (1.4 MILES) 29 604434 Chicopee RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON PM 25 48.5 $8,034,211.00 FULLER ROAD, FROM MEMORIAL DR (RTE 33) TO SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES)

RTP Appendix 8

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 30 604445 Westfield RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 187, Bridge $6,250,000.00 INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF W-25-002, SHERMAN'S MILL BRIDGE OVER GREAT BROOK AT PONTOOSIC ROAD 31 604653 Southampton REHABILITATION OF EAST STREET - FROM PM 25 31.5 $5,022,200.00 COLLEGE HIGHWAY EASTERLY TO COUNTY ROAD (2.6 MILES) 32 604746 West Springfield BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-21-006, CSX Bridge 0 21 $12,403,054.00 RAILROAD OVER UNION STREET 33 605048 Northampton IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 5 (MOUNT PM 25 40 $1,923,075.00 TOM ROAD) - FROM BRIDGE E-5-4 OVER THE MANHAN RIVER TO 850' SOUTH OF I- 91 NB EXIT 18 RAMP (0.85 MILES) 34 605126 Wales WARE- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, W-05- Bridge $3,846,323.00 015, ROUTE 32 (PALMER ROAD) OVER THE WARE RIVER 35 606141 Southwick RECONSTRUCTION OF FEEDING HILLS ROAD PM 0 42.5 $4,080,000.00 (ROUTE 57), FROM COLLEGE HIGHWAY TO THE AGAWAM T.L 36 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON– BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Bridge $56,891,767.00 N-19-059, I-91 OVER US ROUTE 5 AND B&MRR, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS TO I-91/INTERCHANGE 19 37 607430 Longmeadow RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON PM 0 44.5 $2,394,860.00 LONGMEADOW STREET (ROUTE 5), FROM THE CT S.L. TO CONVERSE STREET 38 607646 Westfield WESTFIELD- SUPERSTRUCTURE Bridge $1,725,000.00 REPLACEMENT, W-25-021, LOCKHOUSE ROAD OVER PVRR

RTP Appendix 9

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 39 607688 Monson MONSON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, M-27- Bridge $10,092,316.00 022, BRIMFIELD ROAD (US 20) OVER THE QUABOAG RIVER 40 607526 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE Bridge $660,625.00 RECONSTRUCTION, W-21-011, PROSPECT AVENUE OVER PVRR 41 607443 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE Bridge $3,719,240.00 REHABILITATION, BRIDGE W-21- 27, ROUTE 20 (PARK AVENUE) OVER ROUTE 5 42 605669 Wales PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS & Ped 0 9 $312,500.00 RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 19 43 607886 Hadley RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON PM 0 16.5 $2,100,000.00 ROUTE 47 FROM COMINS DRIVE TO OLD RIVER DRIVE, INCLUDES CULVERT REPLACEMENT AT RUSSELVILLE BROOK 44 607317 Agawam AGAWAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE PM 0 33.8 $7,589,668.00 187, FROM ALLISON LANE TO THE WESTFIELD CITY LINE (1.69 MILES - PHASE III) 45 607316 Agawam RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187, FROM PM 0 33.8 $5,562,610.00 SOUTHWICK/SPRINGFIELD STREET TO ALLISON LANE (1.29 MILES - PHASE II) 46 606450 Holyoke TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 Int 25 63 $9,152,450.00 INTERSECTIONS ALONG HIGH & MAPLE STREETS 47 603372 Agawam RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 5 PM 0 53 $11,670,939.00 CONNECTOR TO ROUTE 57, INCLUDES A-05- 013 & A-05-014 48 606895 Granby Route 202 Intersection Improvements 2 Int 25 42 $2,588,655.00 Locations @ 5 Corners and @ School Street 49 606156 Holyoke RECONSTRUCTION OF I-91 INTERCHANGE Int 0 53 $6,735,389.00 17 & ROUTE 141

RTP Appendix 10

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 50 607502 Northampton INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING Int 25 65 $3,384,309.00 STREET, NORTH STREET & SUMMER STREET AND AT KING STREET & FINN STREET 51 607372 Palmer PALMER- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 32, PM 0 14 $8,476,770.00 FROM 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF RIVER STREET TO THE WARE T.L. (PHASE II) (2.1 MILES) 52 607823 Southampton GREENWAY RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, Bike 0 19.5 $6,810,409.00 FROM COLEMAN RD TO ROUTE 10 53 608073 Westfield WESTFIELD RIVER LEVEE MULTI-USE PATH Bike 0 36 $4,801,730.00 CONSTRUCTION, FROM CONGRESS ST TO WILLIAMS RIDING WAY (NEAR MEADOW ST) (2MILES) 54 608089 Hadley INTERSECTION, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN Int 0 25.5 $1,544,720.00 IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTES 9, 116 & WESTGATE CENTER DRIVE 55 608084 Amherst AMHERST - IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED PM 25 53.5 $3,892,738.00 WORK ON ROUTES 9 & 116, FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO SOUTH PLEASANT STREET (0.8 MILES) 56 608163 Wales WALES- RECONSTRUCTION & PM 25 39.5 $3,737,346.00 IMPROVEMENTS ON MONSON ROAD, FROM THE MONSON T.L. TO REED HILL ROAD (1.5 MILES) 57 608577 Easthampton EASTHAMPTON- IMPROVEMENTS AND PM 0 62 $3,284,450.00 RELATED WORK ON UNION STREET (ROUTE 141) FROM PAYSON AVENUE TO HIGH STREET (0.36 MILES) 58 608157 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- MCKNIGHT COMMUNITY Bike 0 36.5 $4,300,000.00 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM ARMORY STREET TO HAYDEN AVENUE (1.5 MILES) 59 603608 Hatfield HATFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-11- Bridge $497,628.00 025, ELM STREET OVER THE B&M R.R.

RTP Appendix 11

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 60 606469 Longmeadow/Springfield LONGMEADOW- SPRINGFIELD- RETAINING Bridge $6,143,750.00 WALL REPLACEMENT/REHABILITATION ON I-91 (SB) 61 607645 Chicopee CHICOPEE- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, C-13- Bridge $2,340,000.00 027, I-291 OVER SR 141 & CHICOPEE RIVER 62 607644 Longmeadow/Springfield LONGMEADOW-SPRINGFIELD- Bridge $2,420,940.00 STRUCTURAL STEEL GIRDER PAINTING, S- 24-042, S-24-043, A-05-001=S-24-005 & L- 14-001, US 5 OVER I-91, RAMP C OVER RAMP A & I-91, US 5 OVER CT RIVER & AMTRAK & I-91 OVER EMERSON ROAD

63 604209 Holyoke / West REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 5 (RIVERDALE PM 25 49 $14,489,928.00 Springfield ROAD), FROM I-91 (INTERCHANGE 13) TO MAIN STREET IN HOLYOKE & FROM ELM STREET TO NORTH ELM STREET IN WEST SPRINGFIELD (3.2 MILES) 64 608413 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- ROCKY HILL GREENWAY Bike 25 32 $812,026.00 MULTI-USE TRAIL, FROM THE MANHAN RAIL TRAIL TO ROCKY HILL ROAD (0.4 MILES) 65 608374 West Springfield RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE PM 25 70 $22,545,121.00 (ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE ROTARY (1.4 MILES) 66 608719 Amherst / Belchertown AMHERST- BELCHERTOWN- NORWOTTUCK Bike 0 12 $1,083,220.00 RAIL TRAIL RESURFACING, FROM STATION ROAD IN AMHERST TO WARREN WRIGHT ROAD IN BELCHERTOWN (1.5 MILES) 67 608460 Hadley HADLEY- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-01-005, Bridge $7,189,338.00 BAY ROAD (ROUTE 47) OVER THE FORT RIVER

RTP Appendix 12

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 68 608423 Easthampton/ IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON PM 0 28.5 $2,799,540.00 Southampton TWO SECTIONS OF ROUTE 10 IN EASTHAMPTON AND SOUTHAMPTON 69 608553 Hatfield HATFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED PM 0 6.5 $3,124,760.00 WORK ON ROUTES 5 &10, FROM 350 FEET NORTH OF CHURCH AVE TO THE WHATELY TOWN LINE (3.2 MILES) 70 608631 Westhampton WESTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Bridge $1,937,318.00 W-27-005, KINGS HIGHWAY OVER N BRANCH MANHAN RIVER 71 608487 Westfield WESTFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED PM 0 29 $2,760,000.00 WORK ON ROUTE 10 AND 202 72 608489 Wilbraham WILBRAHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED PM 0 36 $9,441,500.00 WORK ON ROUTE 20 73 608473 South Hadley SOUTH HADLEY- RESURFACING AND PM 0 43.5 $5,885,003.00 RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 116 74 608727 Holland HOLLAND- RESURFACING & RELATED PM 0 27.5 $1,051,476.00 WORK ON BRIMFIELD ROAD, FROM WALES ROAD TO STURBRIDGE STREET (0.9 MILES - PHASE II) 75 608718 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION Int 0 41.5 $2,280,751.00 IMPROVEMENTS AT BERKSHIRE AVENUE, COTTAGE AND HARVEY STREETS 76 608717 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF Int 0 70.5 $10,062,663.00 SUMNER AVENUE AT DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X") 77 608575 Include CHICOPEE TO HOLYOKE- GUIDE AND PM 0 0 $1,705,644.00 TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON I-391 78 605032 Hadley HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, PM 25 50 $23,893,982.00 FROM MIDDLE STREET TO MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET

RTP Appendix 13

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 79 608785 South Hadley MAIN STREET ROAD IMPROVEMENT PM 0 38.5 $3,089,720.00 PROJECT 80 608782 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION Int 0 46.5 $2,748,389.00 IMPROVEMENTS AT COTTAGE STREET, ROBBINS ROAD AND INDUSTRY AVE 81 608847 Wales WALES- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-02-002, Bridge $540,096.00 HOLLAND ROAD OVER WALES BROOK 82 608560 Springfield IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE Int 25 0 $1,589,420.00 AT TAPLEY STREET 83 608869 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Bridge $3,981,000.00 N-19-068, OLD SPRINGFIELD ROAD OVER THE MILL RIVER 84 608881 Longmeadow / RESURFACING AND INTERSECTION PM 0 57.5 $5,228,168.00 Springfield IMPROVEMENTS ON LONGMEADOW STREET (ROUTE 5) AND CONVERSE STREET (0.84 MILES) 85 608565 Springfield IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT Int $2,400,000.00 ST. JAMES BOULEVARD AND CAREW STREET 86 609051 Amherst / Pelham RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON PM $7,055,628.00 BELCHERTOWN ROAD (ROUTE 9) FROM SOUTH EAST STREET TO THE BELCHERTOWN T.L. (2.1 MILES) 87 609061 Chicopee CHICOPEE - INTERSECTION Int $6,000,000.00 RECONSTRUCTION, MONTGOVERY ROAD AT GRANBY ROAD AND MCKINSTRY AVENUE, AND MONTGOMERY ROAD AT TURNPIKE ACCESS ROAD 88 609065 Holyoke RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON PM 0 53.5 $5,125,070.00 CABOT STREET AND RACE STREET (CENTER CITY CONNECTOR)

RTP Appendix 14

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 89 606547 Hadley PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT 2 Ped 0 14.5 $134,600.00 LOCATIONS ALONG ROUTE 9 NEAR WEST ST 90 607773 Westfield WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED PM 25 52.5 $8,153,565.00 WORK ON ROUTE 20, COURT STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH STREET/MILL STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II) Eastern Section 91 608466 Belchertown / Granby BELCHERTOWN- GRANBY- RESURFACING PM 0 17 $4,491,288.00 AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 202 92 609286 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- DOWNTOWN COMPLETE Int 0 67.5 $7,654,605.00 STREETS CORRIDOR AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) 93 609395 Belchertown / Ware PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED PM 0 0 $8,298,350.00 WORK ON ROUTE 9 94 608251 Include HOLYOKE- SYSTEMATIC BRIDGE Bridge 0 0 $2,057,782.00 MAINTENANCE ON H-21-047 AND H-21-049 95 602888 Goshen Route 9 reconstruction PM 0 25 $7,500,000.00 97 605207 Chester CHESTER- BRIDGE BETTERMENT, C-11-033, Bridge $268,750.00 ROUTE 20 OVER WALKER BROOK, 98 606197 Amherst AMHERST- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Bridge $500,000.00 NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL OVER SNELL STREET (DCR P10-2631-C5A) 99 606200 Hadley HADLEY - BRIDGE REHABILITATION (H-01- Bridge $750,000.00 026) OF NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL OVER CONNECTICUT RIVER (DCR CONTRACTS P- 10-2731-D1A & P12-2769-D1A) 100 606598 Brimfield/Palmer BRIMFIELD- PALMER- BRIDGE Bridge $6,670,000.00 PRESERVATION, P-01-055, I-90 OVER ROUTE 67 (BOSTON ROAD) & B-24-061=P- 01-048, I90 OVER WASHINGTON ROAD 101 606797 Cummington Route 9 Retaining Wall PM 0 8 $1,660,000.00 RTP Appendix 15

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 102 606886 Montgomery/ Russell MONTGOMERY- RUSSELL- BRIDGE Bridge $39,168,540.00 PRESERVATION, M-30-008=R-13-018 (4GT), I-90 OVER US 20, WESTFIELD RIVER & CSX RR 103 606892 Chicopee CHICOPEE- SLOPE PROTECTION Bridge $538,580.00 IMPROVEMENTS AT I-391 BRIDGE OVER THE CONNECTICUT RIVER 104 606912 Worthington WORTHINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & PM 75 41.5 $8,548,000.00 RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 143 (PHASE I) COLD STREET TO CHESTERFIELD TOWN LINE 105 607231 Williamsburg WILLIAMSBURG- RECONSTRUCTION OF PM 0 18 $7,033,957.00 HIGH STREET AND MOUNTAIN STREET 106 607675 Williamsburg WILLIAMSBURG- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Bridge $5,411,670.00 W-36-011, BRIDGE STREET OVER THE MILL RIVER 107 606499 Russell RUSSELL- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, R-13- Bridge $9,494,400.00 002, BRIDGE STREET OVER THE WESTFIELD RIVER (AKA - STRATHMORE MILL BRIDGE) 108 607690 West WEST SPRINGFIELD-WESTFIELD- BRIDGE Bridge $3,006,800.00 Springfield/Westfield DECK & JOINT REPAIRS ON 10 BRIDGES ON I-90, FROM EAST MOUNTAIN ROAD TO RIVERDALE ROAD (ROUTE 5) 109 606615 Chicopee/Ludlow CHICOPEE- LUDLOW- BRIDGE Bridge $5,428,000.00 PRESERVATION ON 16 BRIDGES ON I-90 (MM 50.9 TO MM 56.9) 110 607691 Chicopee CHICOPEE- BRIDGE DECK & JOINT REPAIRS Bridge $3,601,800.00 ON 12 BRIDGES ON I-90, FROM GRANGER STREET TO SHERIDAN STREET

RTP Appendix 16

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 111 607692 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- WESTFIELD- CLEANING Bridge $4,000,000.00 & PAINTING STRUCTURAL STEEL ON 10 BRIDGES CARRYING I-90 OVER PVRR, LOCKHOUSE ROAD, EAST MOUNTAIN ROAD, PVRR & MORGAN ROAD (FROM MM 40.0 TO 44.1) 112 608736 Granville GRANVILLE- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE PM 0 29 $7,000,000.00 57 113 608846 Monson MONSON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-27- Bridge $1,742,782.00 015, OLD WALES ROAD OVER CONANT BROOK 114 608848 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-24- Bridge $5,723,440.00 016, ARMORY STREET OVER CSX MAINLINE 115 608853 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-24- Bridge $3,948,640.00 026, ARMORY STREET OVER CSX 116 608886 Chesterfield RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTH ROAD AND PM 0 10 $4,441,000.00 DAMON POND ROAD 117 608928 Huntington HUNTINGTON- SYSTEMATIC BRIDGE Bridge $526,506.00 MAINTENANCE, H-27-019, ROUTE 112 OVER SYKES BROOK 118 608945 Russell RUSSELL- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK PM 0 14 $6,500,000.00 ON ROUTE 20 119 609120 Ludlow LUDLOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-16-026, Bridge $598,560.00 PINEY LANE OVER BROAD BROOK 120 609406 Goshen GOSHEN- RESURFACING AND RELATED PM 0 0 $1,486,225.00 WORK ON ROUTE 112 121 609429 Palmer / Ware PALMER- WARE- RESURFACING OF ROUTE PM 0 0 $3,168,886.00 32 122 SPFLD NHVN Regionwide Commuter Rail - Springfield to New Haven - Rail 0 $30,000,000.00 Commute Capital

RTP Appendix 17

Map # SID Municipality Name and Description Project Design TEC Estimated Cost Type Score 123 SPFLD GFLD Regionwide Commuter Rail - Springfield to Greenfield - Rail 0 $10,000,000.00 Commute Capital

124 606886 Montgomery/ Russell MONTGOMERY- RUSSELL- BRIDGE Bridge $39,168,540.00 PRESERVATION, M-30-008=R-13-018 (4GT), I-90 OVER US 20, WESTFIELD RIVER & CSX RR 125 607210 Becket/ Chester/ BECKET- CHESTER- MIDDLEFIELD- Bridge $2,500,000.00 Middlefield REHABILITATION OF B-03-017=M-19-017 & B-03-018=M-19-018, OLD "WESTERN RAILROAD" KEYSTONE ARCH BRIDGES OVER THE WESTERN BRANCH OF WESTFIELD RIVER 126 East_West_Rail Regionwide East/West high speed rail Capital entire Rail 0 $785,000,000.00 system -Boston to Springfield to Vermont/Canada Line 127 DTWN INTER Northampton Downtown bus, rail, intermodal station Rail $14,000,000.00 MODE

128 TRACK EXPAND Palmer Track Expansion Palmer Ind Park Rail 0 $570,000.00

RTP Appendix 18

Photo: North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA CHAPTER 5 - REGIONAL PROFILE APPENDIX Social and economic trends can have significant implications on transportation planning. This chapter presents a profile of the region's physical, socioeconomic, demographic and environmental characteristics as they relate to transportation planning and construction.

A. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The Pioneer Valley Region is located in the Midwestern section of Massachusetts. Encompassing the fourth largest metropolitan area in New England, the region covers 1,179 square miles. The Pioneer Valley is bisected by the Connecticut River and is bounded on the north by Franklin County, on the south by the State of Connecticut, on the east by Quabbin Reservoir and Worcester County and on the west by Berkshire County.

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-1 – Pioneer Valley Region Map

The Pioneer Valley Region, which is comprised of the 43 cities and towns within the Hampden and Hampshire county areas, is home to more than 608,000 people. Hampden County, the most populous of the four western counties of Massachusetts, is approximately 635 square miles. Hampden County is made up of 23 communities including the Springfield-Chicopee- Holyoke urbanized area. Hampshire County is situated in the middle of Western Massachusetts and includes an area of 544 square miles. The third largest city in Massachusetts, Springfield is the region’s cultural and economic center. Springfield is home to several of the region’s largest employers, including Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Baystate Medical Center, Mercy Hospital Incorporated, Smith & Wesson Company, and the MGM Casino. Major cultural institutions include the Springfield Symphony, MassMutual Center, Quadrangle Museums, the Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Dr. Seuss National Memorial Sculpture Garden. The cities of Chicopee and Holyoke were the first planned industrial communities in the nation. Merchants built an elaborate complex of mills, workers’ housing, dams, and canal systems that evolved into cities. While

RTP Appendix

many historic mills and industries are now gone, a number of 19th and 20th century structures are maintained and improved through municipal preservation and revitalization initiatives. Unique within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Pioneer Valley region contains a diverse economic base, internationally known educational institutions, and limitless scenic beauty. Dominant physical characteristics include the broad fertile agricultural valley formed by the Connecticut River, the Holyoke Mountain range that traverses the region from Southwick to Pelham, and the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains. Prime agricultural land, significant wetlands, and scenic rivers are some of the region’s premier natural resources. Choices in lifestyle range from contemporary downtown living to stately historic homes, characteristic suburban neighborhoods, and rural living in very small communities—a variety that contributes to the diversity and appeal of the region. Its unique combination of natural beauty, cultural amenities, and historical character make the Pioneer Valley region an exceptional environment in which to live and work.

B. HIGHWAY 1. Access The Pioneer Valley area is considered the crossroads of transportation in Western Massachusetts. Situated at the intersection of the area's major highways, Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) traveling east-west and Interstate 91 traveling north-south, the region offers easy access to all markets in the Eastern United States and Canada. Major southern New England population centers are accessible within hours. Table 5-1 – Driving Distance and Time from Springfield Destination Distance Time Albany, NY 85 miles 1.5 hours Boston, MA 91 miles 1.5 hours New York City, NY 140 miles 3.0 hours Philadelphia, PA 260 miles 5.0 hours Montreal, Quebec 301 miles 5.5 hours Washington DC 400 miles 8.0 hours

The interstate expressways (I-90/I-91) link most of the major urban centers in the region. The basic highway network including interstate highways, U.S. numbered routes and state routes, along with other traffic arteries, provides access to all municipalities in the region, both urban and rural. The pattern of principal arterial highways in the region is radial, extending outwards from

RTP Appendix

each of the region's major centers, a consequence of development and topographic influences. Table 5-2 – Regional Interstate Highways Interstate Principal Orientation # of In- Region In-Region Toll Highways Interchanges Mileage Road? I-90 East/West (Mass. Turnpike) 6 46.08 Yes I-91 North/South 22 31.17 No I-291 Connector (Springfield to I-90) 6 5.44 No I-391 Connector (I-91 to Chicopee/Holyoke) 6 3.82 No

The highway network is composed of various facilities that are separated into systems within the federal-aid highway program by the Massachusetts Highway Department on the basis of their functional classification which takes into account the various functions and uses of the roads. The federal-aid highway program in Massachusetts is a state administered program. The program consists of three separate federal aid systems, the National Highway System (NHS), the Interstate System and the Surface Transportation Program. The Federal-Aid highway system in the Pioneer Valley region consists of approximately 1,360 miles, of which approximately 446 miles are on the National Highway System (NHS), and approximately 900 miles belong to the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is a block grant type program that includes NHS roadways which primarily consist of Interstate routes and a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials. The Federal-Aid highway system consists of any roadway that is not functionally classified as a rural minor collector or local roadway. Local roads constitute approximately 69% of the total roadway system. The roadway mileage in the Pioneer Valley has remained fairly consistent over the last several years, since the construction of Interstate 391. New roadway construction has become more difficult in recent years as a result of rising construction costs and the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The last major new roadway to be constructed in the region occurred in 1996 when a portion of Route 57 was relocated in Agawam. This project extended the existing limited access portion of Route 57 out to Route 187. 2. Functional Classification The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update the Federal-Aid Highway system and identify the National Highway System. Both of these highway systems are used as

RTP Appendix

inventory mechanisms and funding eligibility criteria for our nation's roadway network. In 1992, the PVPC, under the direction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), began the reclassification process to update the federal-aid network in the Pioneer Valley Region. The region’s roadways were grouped into classes according to the service they are intended to provide. The region’s urbanized area is updated as a result of the 2010 census. In 2005, the PVPC solicited information on roadway classification changes from local officials in order to identify existing roadways that have been permanently closed to through traffic in response to enhanced regional security or changes in local traffic flow and develop a proposed new functional classification scheme to maintain a comprehensive and continuous network of functionally classified roadways in the region. The seven functional classifications adopted by Massachusetts are summarized below: Interstate - Freeways service as principal arterials providing service to substantial statewide and interstate travel. Rural Principal Arterials - Major highways that serve corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics that indicate substantial statewide or interstate travel. Principal Arterials include the Interstate system. Rural Minor Arterial - Roadways with statewide significance that link cities and large towns forming an integrated network of intracounty importance. Rural Major Collectors and Urban Minor Arterials - Those roads that provide service to cities, towns and other traffic generators not served by the arterial system; roads that link these places with the arterial system; and roads that serve the more important intracounty travel corridors. Rural Minor Collectors and Urban Collectors - Roads that bring traffic from local roads to collector roads; roads that provide service to small communities and link local traffic generators to the rural areas. Local Roads - Roads that provide access to adjacent land; roads that provide service to relatively short distances. Local roads include all roads not classified as part of the principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector system. Other Urban Principle Arterials - Roadways with significance that service access to and within the urbanized area. Connections to interstate and rural principle arterials are typical. After local and state reviews, a final federal-aid network was completed for the Pioneer Valley Region. Table 5-3 summarizes the roadway mile by

RTP Appendix

functional classification for each community. The functional classification of a roadway may be upgraded or downgraded based on changes in land use, population, and vehicular volume. Communities can request a change in the functional classification through a written request to the PVPC. If PVPC concurs, that a change is warranted, the request is submitted to MassDOT Planning for their approval. Once approved by MassDOT, the change requires endorsement by both the MPO and the FHWA before the functional classification can be officially changed. Table 5-3 – Miles of Roadway by Community and Functional Classification Functional Classification Urban Rural Urban Rural Community Total Interstates Arterials Arterials Collectors Collectors Local Roads Agawam 153.3 0.0 29.2 0.0 27.8 0.0 96.4 Amherst 137.8 0.0 41.3 0.0 5.1 1.6 89.8 Belchertown 162.8 0.0 25.9 7.5 9.4 8.7 111.3 Blandford 89.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 46.9 Brimfield 79.0 3.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 17.0 50.1 Chester 67.3 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 22.0 38.8 Chesterfield 58.5 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 15.6 35.1 Chicopee 261.1 11.4 38.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 195.6 Cummington 61.2 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 9.4 38.7 East Longmeadow 100.6 0.0 21.4 0.0 9.4 0.0 69.8 Easthampton 91.6 0.5 25.7 0.0 5.0 0.0 60.5 Goshen 42.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 8.2 28.4 Granby 68.8 0.0 16.9 1.0 12.3 6.0 32.7 Granville 73.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 17.3 46.7 Hadley 79.2 0.0 18.5 0.3 4.3 14.7 41.5 Hampden 55.1 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.5 7.3 39.5 Hatfield 59.4 3.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 41.0 Holland 38.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 26.2 Holyoke 176.8 9.9 38.3 0.0 20.9 0.0 107.7 Huntington 54.7 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 12.0 31.5 Longmeadow 99.7 3.3 14.3 0.0 5.0 0.0 77.3 Ludlow 137.2 5.8 25.0 0.0 10.0 1.6 94.9 Middlefield 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 30.9 Monson 110.0 0.0 13.1 3.3 0.9 16.9 75.8 Montgomery 31.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 22.9 Northampton 180.8 6.0 48.4 0.0 16.1 0.0 110.3 Palmer 118.1 7.5 30.8 1.6 7.1 9.1 62.0 Pelham 45.8 0.0 2.7 5.7 0.0 8.4 29.0 Plainfield 48.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 30.4 Russell 35.8 3.9 7.8 0.0 1.3 6.8 16.1 South Hadley 104.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 10.2 0.0 76.1 Southampton 76.9 0.0 9.3 0.0 7.9 1.4 58.3 Southwick 90.1 0.0 16.3 2.8 10.8 7.7 52.6 Springfield 504.5 11.0 99.4 0.0 46.6 0.0 347.5 Tolland 41.6 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.3 30.6 Wales 28.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 15.6 Ware 115.4 0.0 13.8 4.8 9.0 5.5 82.3 West Springfield 144.6 6.3 30.9 0.0 8.9 0.0 98.6 Westfield 250.3 6.7 47.2 0.0 20.1 0.0 176.4 Westhampton 47.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.0 25.1 Wilbraham 113.8 1.1 20.5 0.0 12.4 4.6 75.2 Williamsburg 50.5 0.0 2.7 7.0 0.0 12.9 27.8 Worthington 65.1 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.6 44.3 Pioneer Valley Region 4,387.0 88.6 666.4 111.8 278.1 354.2 2,888.0 Source: MassDOT

RTP Appendix

3. Jurisdiction There are over 4,387 miles of road in the region. As of 2017, city and town governments administered 81 percent of the road miles and the MassDOT was responsible for approximately eight percent. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Federal Government, various park systems and the state colleges and universities administered a small number of roadway miles. Table 5-4 gives an inventory of the region's roadway miles according to the governmental unit responsible for maintaining them. Table 5-4 – Miles of Roadway by Community and Administrative Unit City/ Mass Town State State County Combined Community Total DOT Accepted DCR Park Institutional Institutional Unaccepted Federal Agawam 153.3 14.2 122.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 Amherst 137.8 4.6 99.9 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 24.8 0.0 Belchertown 162.8 15.3 127.4 8.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 Blandford 89.0 18.2 63.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 Brimfield 79.0 14.7 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Chester 67.3 6.5 56.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 Chesterfield 58.5 0.1 53.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 Chicopee 261.1 16.4 190.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 36.5 16.0 Cummington 61.2 9.7 48.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 East Longmeadow 100.6 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Easthampton 91.6 2.9 82.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Goshen 42.1 7.2 24.9 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 Granby 68.8 7.7 58.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 Granville 73.0 0.1 64.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 Hadley 79.2 8.3 64.4 0.0 1.7 3.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 Hampden 55.1 0.0 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Hatfield 59.4 7.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 Holland 38.3 0.1 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 Holyoke 176.8 17.0 133.1 0.0 5.3 1.9 0.0 19.5 0.0 Huntington 54.7 11.8 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.6 Longmeadow 99.8 3.3 84.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 Ludlow 137.2 6.1 123.2 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 Middlefield 38.3 0.0 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monson 110.0 7.1 100.2 0.02 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 Montgomery 31.2 0.1 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Northampton 180.8 13.8 152.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 11.5 1.8 Palmer 118.1 23.4 86.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 Pelham 45.8 5.7 22.8 14.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Plainfield 48.1 0.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Russell 35.8 13.4 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 South Hadley 104.0 8.8 84.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 Southampton 76.9 5.4 67.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 Southwick 90.1 7.2 71.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 Springfield 504.5 12.7 437.7 0.0 6.7 1.6 0.0 45.8 0.0 Tolland 41.6 0.2 39.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Wales 28.5 5.1 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ware 115.5 11.1 84.9 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 West Springfield 144.6 15.2 117.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 Westfield 250.3 16.4 187.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 46.0 0.0 Westhampton 47.3 0.01 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 Wilbraham 113.8 6.2 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 Williamsburg 50.5 5.8 42.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 Worthington 65.1 6.0 57.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Pioneer Valley Region 4387.04 335.5 3,591.3 39.2 36.2 20.3 0.0 342.4 22.1 Source: MassDOT

RTP Appendix

4. Bridges Among the existing transportation facilities in the Pioneer Valley Region major bridge crossings remain a focal point for regional transportation concerns, as many streets and highways converge into a limited number of crossings over the Connecticut, Westfield and Chicopee Rivers. Table 5-5 lists the bridges by community according to the governmental unit responsible for maintaining them. Additional information on bridge condition is available in Chapter 6. Table 5-5 – Number of Bridges by Community and by Administrative Unit Municipality Municipal State Municipality Municipal State Agawam 1 17 Middlefield 9 0 Amherst 10 5 Monson 13 10 Belchertown 8 4 Montgomery 4 1 Blandford 6 6 Northampton 21 23 Brimfield 17 10 Palmer 8 22 Chester 16 9 Pelham 3 0 Chesterfield 7 3 Plainfield 2 0 Chicopee 5 45 Russell 4 11 Cummington 6 7 South Hadley 4 7 Easthampton 10 9 Southampton 9 2 East Longmeadow 0 0 Southwick 1 2 Goshen 2 2 Springfield 13 48 Granby 7 1 Tolland 0 0 Granville 4 3 Wales 1 0 Hadley 4 6 Ware 9 7 Hampden 8 0 West Springfield 0 26 Hatfield 5 10 Westfield 13 25 Holland 2 0 Westhampton 11 1 Holyoke 9 40 Wilbraham 2 2 Huntington 2 6 Williamsburg 10 7 Longmeadow 0 4 Worthington 10 5 Ludlow 8 15 Grand Total 284 401 5. Vehicle Miles Traveled Traffic on the region's roadways has been increasing, in general. In the period between 2003 and 2015, the estimated number of daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) in the Pioneer Valley Region experienced periods of fluctuation between increase and decline. However, there was an overall increase of 914,000 vehicle miles per average weekday between 2003 and 2015. A small decrease of 3000 in DVMT was estimated in 2016 followed by a steady

RTP Appendix

increase in DVMT going forward. The expected increase in DVMT in future years was projected using growth rates from the statewide travel demand model. The total DVMT values presented in Table 5-6 come from MassDOT’s latest and recently revised VMT projections. The projections are based on improved software and traffic volume data collection and processing methods in place as of the year 2015. Projections are made out to the year 2040 based on statewide, regional and county growth rates from the statewide travel demand model. For VMT values for 2014 and earlier, MassDOT applied “retrocast” proportional adjustments that now better reflect true VMT for those years – VMT that they would have captured had they had their improved data collection and processes in place. These adjustments eliminate what was essentially an artificial spike in VMT in recent years. While these numbers are significantly different from previous VMT estimates, they do not include the new socioeconomic projections included as part of Chapter 13 of this RTP. Changes in total DVMT from 2003 – 2040 are displayed in Figure 5-2. Figure 5-2 – Estimated Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled

The increase in DVMT is the result of several growth trends identified in the Pioneer Valley as well as other areas of the state and nation. Vehicle ownership is on the rise while vehicle occupancy rates decline resulting in more single occupant vehicles on our roadways. A steady annual increase in traffic volume of 0.44% per year is estimated to occur over the next five years from 2019 to 2023. This projected increase in annual DVMT is estimated to gradually decline in the future. Increases in DVMT from 2036 to 2040 were projected at 0.41% per year.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-6 – 2000 - 2012 Estimated Urban Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel in the Pioneer Valley (in thousands) Urban Urban Principal Minor Urban Arterials Arterials Collectors Other and and and Urban Rural Rural Rural Interstate Principle Minor Major Minor Local Year Highway Arterials Arterials Arterials Collectors Roads Total 2003 4,143 763 3,308 3,301 802 1,834 14,150 2004 4,210 775 3,361 3,354 815 1,863 14,377 2005 4,253 783 3,396 3,388 823 1,883 14,526 2006 4,223 777 3,372 3,364 817 1,869 14,422 2007 4,223 777 3,372 3,364 817 1,869 14,423 2008 4,182 770 3,339 3,331 809 1,851 14,282 2009 4,210 775 3,361 3,353 815 1,863 14,377 2010 4,193 772 3,348 3,340 811 1,856 14,321 2011 4,226 778 3,374 3,367 818 1,871 14,434 2012 4,303 792 3,436 3,428 833 1,905 14,696 2013 4,343 800 3,468 3,460 840 1,922 14,834 2014 4,439 817 3,544 3,536 859 1,965 15,161 2015 4,411 812 3,522 3,514 854 1,952 15,064 2016 4,410 812 3,521 3,513 853 1,952 15,061 2017 4,430 815 3,537 3,529 857 1,961 15,129 2018 4,449 819 3,553 3,545 861 1,969 15,196 2019 4,469 823 3,568 3,560 865 1,978 15,263 2020 4,489 826 3,584 3,576 869 1,987 15,331 2021 4,509 830 3,600 3,592 872 1,996 15,398 2022 4,528 834 3,616 3,608 876 2,004 15,466 2023 4,548 837 3,631 3,623 880 2,013 15,533 2024 4,568 841 3,647 3,639 884 2,022 15,600 2025 4,588 844 3,663 3,655 888 2,030 15,668 2026 4,607 848 3,679 3,670 892 2,039 15,735 2027 4,627 852 3,694 3,686 895 2,048 15,803 2028 4,647 855 3,710 3,702 899 2,057 15,870 2029 4,667 859 3,726 3,718 903 2,065 15,937 2030 4,686 863 3,742 3,733 907 2,074 16,005 2031 4,706 866 3,757 3,749 911 2,083 16,072 2032 4,726 870 3,773 3,765 914 2,092 16,140 2033 4,745 874 3,789 3,780 918 2,100 16,207 2034 4,765 877 3,805 3,796 922 2,109 16,274 2035 4,785 881 3,820 3,812 926 2,118 16,342 2036 4,805 884 3,836 3,828 930 2,127 16,409 2037 4,824 888 3,852 3,843 934 2,135 16,477 2038 4,844 892 3,868 3,859 937 2,144 16,544 2039 4,864 895 3,883 3,875 941 2,153 16,611 2040 4,884 899 3,899 3,890 945 2,162 16,679 Sources: Massachusetts State HPMS (Highway Performance Monitoring System) Submittals to FHWA, Massachusetts Road Inventory Data, Massachusetts Statewide Travel Demand Model

RTP Appendix

6. Average Daily Traffic Counts The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) monitors traffic levels throughout the Region. Conducting close to 150 roadway segment counts annually as well as compiling counts from various local traffic studies; the PVPC continuously expands the data base. This information is used to measure Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT), and identify seasonal, daily and hourly trends related to vehicle travel. In addition to the selective ground counts conducted throughout the region, there are fourteen permanent monitoring stations maintained by MassDOT. The MassDOT locations collect counts hourly, 365 days a year. These permanent count locations are shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 – MassDOT Permanent Count Stations in the Pioneer Valley Location ID Community Roadway Location 26 Longmeadow I-91 S/O Springfield City Line 33 Chicopee I-391 S/O I-90 at Route 116 37 Chicopee I-391 N/O I-90 2163 Chicopee I-391 @ Connecticut River Bridge 2252 Chicopee I-391 N/O I-91 11 Northampton Route 5/10 S/O Hatfield Town Line 2405 Northampton I-91 N/O King Street Interchange 2425 Northampton I-91 BTW. Route 9 & Damon Road 2436 Northampton I-91 BTW. Rts. 5 & 9 31 Springfield I-291 S/O Roosevelt Avenue 2251 Springfield I-291 @Chicopee C.L. 2248 Springfield I-291 W/O Saint James Avenue 3329 Brimfield Route 20 .8 km E/O Holland Road 280 West Springfield Route 5 at the Holyoke City Line 2797 West Springfield I-91 N/O Route 5 130 Huntington Route 112 S/O Route 66/112 2164 Goshen Route 112 0.6 km S/O Ashfield Town Line 1180 Russell Route 20 1.0 km W/O Route 23 2396 Hatfield I-91 N/O Chestnut Street Source: mhd.ms2soft.com

Table 5-8 provides information on the percent change in traffic volumes at the above mentioned interstate locations. By examining the change in traffic volumes at the permanent count stations, information can be developed on the amount of growth occurring at specific locations throughout the region. Locations have been grouped by the functional classification of the roadway and are shown in Figures 5-3 through 5-7. The functional classification of the roadway is an indication of the type and amount of traffic a roadway is expected to serve.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-8 – Percent Change in Interstate Highway Traffic Volumes Community Roadway Location Range % Change Longmeadow I-91 S/O Springfield City Line 2006-2016 8.04% Northampton I-91 N/O King Street Interchange 2006-2016 -11.47% Northampton I-91 BTW. Route 9 & Damon Road 2006-2016 4.74% Northampton I-91 BTW. Rts. 5 & 9 2006-2016 -1.32% West Springfield I-91 N/O Route 5 2006-2016 2.18% Hatfield I-91 N/O Chestnut Street 2006-2016 3.80% Springfield I-291 S/O Roosevelt Avenue 2006-2016 11.58% Springfield I-291 @Chicopee C.L. 2006-2016 22.59% Springfield I-291 W/O Saint James Avenue 2006-2016 15.24% Chicopee I-391 S/O I-90 at Route 116 2006-2016 7.99% Chicopee I-391 @ Connecticut River Bridge 2006-2016 12.61% Chicopee I-391 N/O I-90 2006-2014 15.83% Chicopee I-391 N/O I-91 2004-2014 6.48%

Figure 5-3 – Average Annual Traffic for I-91

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-4 – Average Annual Traffic for I-391

Figure 5-5 – Average Annual Traffic for I-291

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-6 – Average Annual Daily Traffic for Arterial Roadways

Figure 5-7 – Average Annual Daily Traffic for Rural Roadways

RTP Appendix

7. Mode Share Information on mode share data was obtained from the Pioneer Valley Data Portal at http://pioneervalleydata.org/. This data is based on the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data and reflects the 5 year average of commuting trends for employment purposes. The data is broken down by county and shown in Figure 5-8. Figure 5-8 – Hampden and Hampshire County Employment Travel Modes

The mode share differences between Hampden and Hampshire Counties are significant but both skew towards single occupant vehicles. Approximately 82% of commuters in Hampden County drive alone to work while only 5% walk, bicycle or take public transit. In contrast, 71% of commuters in Hampshire County drive alone to work while 13% walk, bicycle or take public transit. One reason may be a result of the commuting patterns of the students and faculty that attend the University of Massachusetts in Amherst who may have more travel options. 8. Scenic Byways The National Scenic Byways Program is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The program is a collaborative effort to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Projects included in this program focus on the betterment of the services and facilities that attract and please the traveling public. Over the last fifteen years, the PVPC has taken an active role in the development of planning studies and project development to support the

RTP Appendix

preservation of scenic roadways in the Pioneer Valley region. There are currently four designated scenic byways in the Pioneer Valley Region. Figure 5-9 – Scenic Byways in the Pioneer Valley Region .

Route 20 from Route 116 from Route 112 from Route 47 and 63 Russell to Lee Sunderland to Adams Huntington to the from South Hadley to Vermont State Line the Vermont State Line

More information on scenic byways, including an interactive mapping tool, in the Pioneer Valley region is available at: http://www.bywayswestmass.com/.

C. PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION The Pioneer Valley provides an extensive transit system that offers many different modes of public transportation. Intra-county and Intercity buses, van service for seniors and disabled riders, ridesharing, and park and ride lots are all vital to the mobility of the regions residents. What follows is a summary of these services. • Public buses operating on fixed routes and schedules • Vans for disabled residents and senior citizens better known as Paratransit • Commercial scheduled bus service within the region, as well as to destinations beyond the region • Commercial and non-profit van shuttles, charter buses and taxis • Passenger rail 1. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Bus and Paratransit Service PVTA is the largest regional transit authority in the state. PVTA’s service area begins at the Connecticut state line and stretches north to Leverett, MA. PVTA has 42 scheduled or fixed bus routes and on-demand paratransit van service in 24 communities with a total population of 561,952 (2017 U.S. Census estimate). Funding for PVTA comes from several sources: federal, state and local governments; passenger fares; and advertising. The authority’s operating RTP Appendix

budget in FY18 is $46.8 million. Member cities and towns contribute an annual assessment to PVTA based on the level of service that operates in their community. Passenger fares cover about 16% of the total cost of the service. Funds for capital improvements are received through various state and federal grant programs. MGL Chapter 161b prohibits PVTA from directly operating transit services so they contract with four private management companies: • First Transit operates fixed bus routes based in Springfield and Northampton • UMass Transit Services operates fixed bus routes based at the University of Massachusetts serving the Amherst area • Hulmes Transportation operates community mini-bus shuttles in Easthampton, Palmer, and Ware • NEXT operates all paratransit van services.

PVTA’s basic fare is $1.50 per ride. Transfers cost an extra 25 cents and are good for 90 minutes from time of purchase. Reduced fares of 75 cents per ride are offered for elderly and disabled customers, as well as Medicaid card holders (transfers are 10 cents). The fare for children age 6 to 12 is 90 cents; children younger than age 6 ride free with an adult. Monthly unlimited ride passes are $54, with a discounted price of $26 for elderly, disabled, and Medicaid card holders. PVTA also offers 1-day unlimited ride passes for $3.50 and 7-day passes for $15. Fares for routes serving the University of Massachusetts are collected under a “proof of payment” system in cooperation with the University and other Five Colleges institutions (Smith, Mount Holyoke, Hampshire and Amherst Colleges). Instead of onboard collection, fares on these routes are collected through activity fees that are paid by students, as well as subsidies from the institutions. Students, faculty and staff of these institutions must be prepared to show their current school ID cards as proof of fare payment when riding the bus. Riders who are not affiliated with the 5 Colleges must purchase multi- ride passes or single ride tickets. Cash is not collected aboard UMass Transit buses in the Amherst area.

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-10 – PVTA Service Communities and Scheduled Bus Routes

The following cities and towns make up PVTA’s service area:

Agawam Granby Ludlow Sunderland Amherst Hadley Northampton Ware Belchertown Hampden Palmer West Springfield Chicopee Holyoke Pelham Westfield Easthampton Leverett South Hadley Wilbraham E. Longmeadow Longmeadow Springfield Williamsburg

a) PVTA Bus Riders A 2015/16 passenger survey found that 55.1% of PVTA riders use the bus to commute to work or school. The remaining trip purposes surveyed were RTP Appendix

shopping (12%), medical appointments (10.4%), attending social and recreational events (7.8%), and unspecified (14.8%). A total of 71.5% of riders report earning less than $20,000 per year; 51.5% of riders report no cars available at their household; and 68% of riders say they have no other way to make their trip other than using PVTA.

Table 5-9 – PVTA Bus Route Ridership Fiscal Year Passenger Trips % Change 2008 9,677,076 2.49% 2009 9,896,940 2.22% 2010 9,745,869 -1.55% 2011 10,152,538 4.01% 2012 10,766,142 5.70% 2013 11,128,713 3.26% 2014 11,415,923 2.52% 2015 12,074,280 5.45% 2016 12,154,880 0.66% 2017 11,466,527 -5.66% 2018 10,902,207 -4.92% Fiscal year: July 1 through June 30 Source: PVTA b) PVTA Bus Fleet PVTA’s bus fleet consists of 189 vehicles from three manufacturers: 115 Gillig low-floor clean diesel vehicles manufactured after 2006, 67 standard and 4 articulated New Flyer buses, and 3 Proterra battery-electric buses. All buses provide comparable passenger amenities: all are air conditioned and equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps. PVTA’s buses are based at three garages, as shown in Table 5-10.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-10 – PVTA Bus Fleet Springfield Northampton Garage UMass Garage Bus Model Garage (Northern Totals (Northern Area) (Southern Area) Area) Gillig 86 11 18 115 New Flyer 45 7 15 67 New Flyer 0 2 2 4 (Articulated) Proterra 3 0 0 3 Totals 134 20 35 189

Pictures of the PVTA Gillig low-floor bus, New Flyer standard and articulated buses, and the Proterra battery-electric bus c) PVTA Paratransit Service Paratransit is demand response door-to-door van service that is scheduled by the rider. PVTA’s fleet consists of 142 vans. These vans are equipped with wheelchair lifts and other special equipment to insure the safety of disabled riders. As the average age of the region’s residents continues to rise, the need and demand for paratransit services will increase substantially. Paratransit fares typically cover only about 10% of the service cost. This section describes the two types of paratransit van service that PVTA provides to residents of its 24 member communities. Total ridership for the service is presented below.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-11 – PVTA Annual Paratransit Ridership Fiscal Year Annual Rides % Change 2008 308,787 3.00% 2009 308,369 -0.14% 2010 317,733 2.95% 2011 318,869 0.36% 2012 316,208 -0.84% 2013 312,015 -1.34% 2014 304,998 -2.30% 2015 310,133 1.66% 2016 333,830 7.10% 2017 297,627 -12.16% 2018 291,932 -1.91% Fiscal year July 1 through June 30 Source: PVTA The ridership numbers for FY 2012 and 2013 are actually going down while the number of seniors using the service is going up. A possible explanation for why ridership is going down is that the PVTA discovered that they were counting the “primary care attendants” (PCA’s) as passengers when in fact they should not have been counted. They have since discontinued the counting of PCA’s as riders. • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Service -- Federal law requires that public transit providers offer paratransit service that is comparable to their fixed route bus service to disabled customers who are unable to use regular buses. Customers must be eligible to use the service, and an application and approval process is required. Trips must be scheduled at least one day in advance. ADA paratransit service is available only within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed bus route, and the trip must start and be completed during the same hours that the nearest regular bus route operates. The fare is $3.00, $3.50, $4.00, or $5.00 per ride, depending on pickup and drop off locations. • Senior Dial-A-Ride Service -- PVTA also provides van service to people age 60 and over in its 24 member communities. This service is operated on a space-available basis Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Fares are $3.00, $3.50, $4.00, or $5.00 per ride, depending on the pickup and drop off locations. Tickets are available from local senior centers and the PVTA Information Center in $0.50 or $3.00 denominations and discounts are often available.

PVTA conducts quarterly Paratransit rider meetings. Meetings are held in both the southern and northern regions – usually within a day or two of each other. PVTA provides free rides to those who wish to attend these meetings. PVTA uses these meetings to pass on any new information to their

RTP Appendix

Paratransit riders and to get feedback from them regarding any issues they may have with the service. Councils on Aging (COAs) and Senior Centers in the PVTA service area also provide transportation to their senior residents. Below is a table showing the level and type of service provided by each COA.

Table 5-12 – PVTA Service Area Councils on Aging and Senior Centers

City or Town Transportation Provided? # of Vehicles Hours of Service Agawam Yes 2 vans varies, M-F Amherst Yes No vans - volunteers Varies 8:00 - 3:30 M-Th Belchertown Yes 1 van 8:00 - 1:00 F Chicopee Yes 2 cars, 2 vans 8:30-3:30 East Longmeadow Yes 1 van 9:00 - 3:00 Easthampton Yes 1 van, 2 shuttles - volunteers 8:00 - 4:00 Granby Yes 2 vans 9:00 3:00 Hadley Yes 1 van Thursday only Hampden Yes 1 van 9:00 - 3:00 Holyoke Yes 3 cars 8:15 - 3:30 Leverett No

Longmeadow Yes 1 van varies Ludlow Yes 2 vans 8:00 - 4:00 Northampton Yes 1 van - volunteers varies Palmer Yes 2 vans 8:00 - 3:30 Pelham info not available

South Hadley Yes 1 van 9:00 - 3:00 in town Springfield No

Sunderland No

Ware Yes 1 van 9:00 - 12:00 West Springfield Yes 1 van 8:00 - 4:30 Westfield Yes No vans - volunteers varies Wilbraham Yes 1 van varies Williamsburg Yes No vans - volunteers 8:30-1:30 M-Th

2. Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) Paratransit Service There are 14 additional towns in the PVPC region that are not members of PVTA and instead contract with the Franklin Region Transit Authority (FRTA), based in Greenfield, for paratransit service. These towns are: Blandford, Chester, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Huntington, Middlefield, Montgomery, Plainfield, Russell, Southampton, Southwick, Westhampton, and Worthington. Because these communities are located in the furthest western and southern portions of the PVPC region, they are not within the ¾ mile buffer of any fixed route bus service in the region and therefore no ADA paratransit service is available. Senior dial-a-ride service is offered for persons age 60 and older through municipal senior centers. In some cases, pre-certification of eligibility

RTP Appendix

is required. Days, hours of operations, fares and service frequency vary by town. The FRTA paratransit fare varies by route. It is double the fare for the fixed route service. 3. Regional Coordinating Councils Massachusetts enacted Executive Order 530 in 2011 to enhance the efficiency of community and paratransit transportation services in the Commonwealth. The order seeks to align the paratransit needs of the Commonwealth with current levels of service and assess if the current services conform with federal and state requirements. A major product of Executive Order 530 was the Community, Social Service and Paratransit Transportation Commission Report. This report recommended the formation of Regional Coordinating Councils (RCC) to identify and address existing service gaps at the local level. RCCs are voluntary advisory bodies that seek to: • Identify unmet service needs • Develop regional priorities • Coordinate existing services to serve more people at the local level • Report unmet needs to the appropriate government agency (i.e. MassDOT) • Raise awareness of the important role community transportation services play for all More information on both RCC’s in the Pioneer Valley region is provided in Table 5-13. Table 5-13 – Regional Coordinating Councils in the Pioneer Valley RCC Coverage Area Contact Pioneer Agawam, Amherst, Chicopee, East Jennifer Lee, Valley Longmeadow, Easthampton, Granby, Hadley, Stavros Hampden, Hatfield, Holyoke, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Monson, Northampton, South Hadley, Springfield, West Springfield, Westfield, Wilbraham Hilltown Becket, Blandford, Chester, Chesterfield, Kate Bavelock, Cummington, Dalton, Florida, Goshen, Granville, Hilltown CDC Haydenville, Hinsdale, Huntington, Middlefield, Williamsburg Quaboag Belchertown, Brimfield, Brookfield, Charlton, Gail Farnsworth Valley Dudley, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Holland, French, Quaboag Monson, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oxford, Valley CDC Palmer, Spencer, Southbridge, Sturbridge, Wales, Ware, Warren, West Brookfield

RTP Appendix

4. Commercial Scheduled Bus Service The Pioneer Valley is served by two major commercial bus passenger carriers that provide scheduled service to destinations within the region, as well as cities and towns throughout New England and North America. These carriers serve three bus terminals and other stops in the region. a) Bus Terminals and Service Locations • Springfield Union Station – Located at 55 Frank B Murray Street in downtown Springfield, this terminal is the regional hub for bus and rail service. The station is owned by Springfield Redevelopment Authority and managed by Appleton Corporation. It has 25 boarding gates, 17 of which are leased to PVTA while 8 are used by intercity buses (Peter Pan and Greyhound). There are waiting areas, a ticket counter and concession vendors for passengers, and a concourse connecting to Amtrak services on Lyman Street. The upper floors are used for office space. On an average day, over 4,000 PVTA customers board at Union Station. • Northampton Bus Terminal – This three-story building at One Roundhouse Plaza behind City Hall accommodates two intercity buses and includes an enclosed waiting area (PVTA service is available one block west at the Academy of Music). Approximately 10 trips per day depart this terminal. The building also contains commercial offices and a restaurant. The terminal was built in 1984 as a project of Peter Pan Bus Lines and the former Western Mass Bus Lines. Today, it is operated by Peter Pan and is also served by Greyhound. • Holyoke Transportation Center – This transit hub is located at 206 Maple Street in downtown Holyoke. It replaced the old Veterans Park location. The center opened in September 2010 and has seven bus bays for PVTA and Peter Pan vehicles. PVTA has 8 routes servicing the Holyoke Transportation Center. On an average weekday, over 850 passengers board at this terminal. It has an enclosed waiting area and a ticket and information desk. It is a joint project of PVTA, Peter Pan and the City of Holyoke. Community and education facilities are located on the upper floors. • Olver Transit Pavilion – This transit hub is located at 10 Arnold Street in Westfield. The pavilion opened in April 2017 with four bus bays for PVTA vehicles, served by 3 PVTA routes. On an average weekday, over 160 passengers board at this terminal. It has an enclosed waiting area with vending machines and real-time departure information. • Other Commercial Bus Service Locations – Service provided by Peter Pan (5 trips per day) is available from the University of Massachusetts and Amherst Center via the Northampton Bus Terminal. Daily service is available to South Hadley and Hampshire College.

RTP Appendix

b) Commercial Carriers The commercial bus passenger market in New England is highly competitive. In the Pioneer Valley, there are two intercity carriers. These are described below. • Peter Pan Bus Lines has served the region for more than 75 years. The company carries the most commercial passengers in the region, providing frequent service to destinations within and outside the Pioneer Valley. The carrier has two primary routes with hourly service: Amherst to Boston (via Springfield), and Springfield to New York City. An average of 13 buses per day run in each direction on these two routes. Peter Pan also operates east-west service between Boston and Albany, New York. Travelers can obtain convenient connections from Amherst, Northampton, Springfield, Worcester, and Boston. Peter Pan also operates 7 nonstop trips per day between Springfield and Hartford, Connecticut via I-91, with a travel time of 35 minutes. Service is also provided to Foxwoods Casino in Ledyard, Connecticut and Washington DC. • Greyhound Lines, Inc., based in Dallas, Texas, serves approximately 3,700 destinations in North America. Greyhound is owned by the Scottish company FirstGroup. Greyhound acquired Vermont Transit Lines of Burlington, Vermont in 2008 and now operates those routes as part of its network. Greyhound offers service from the following locations in the region: Northampton and Springfield. 5. Shuttles, Charters and Taxis There are a variety of transportation services in the region that are geared to help people make trips for tourism, recreation or other special purposes. These are summarized below. a) Shuttles Van shuttles serve an important segment of the region’s transportation market by serving destinations for which demand maybe relatively frequent; or involve passengers with special needs or schedule requirements. Commercial shuttle operators include Valley Transporter, which focuses on service to and from airports and rail stations in New England, and VanGo, which connects Boston to the Five Colleges. Service to Bradley International Airport is provided hourly from most locations the Pioneer Valley. Service to Boston, Providence, and New York is also provided, though not on a scheduled basis. Non-profit organizations also operate shuttles, typically for their clients. Examples include municipal councils on aging, day care providers and social service agencies.

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-11 – Intercity Bus Routes Serving the Pioneer Valley

RTP Appendix

b) Charters and Tours Charter and tour bus services in the region provide special trips for tourism and other purposes within and outside the region. Commercial companies offer package trips and private party excursions to many attractions throughout the Pioneer Valley, including Yankee Candle Company in South Deerfield, Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, MGM Springfield as well as gambling casinos in Connecticut, Six Flags Amusement Park in Agawam, senior tours to Atlantic City, and other recreational trips. Major charter and tour providers in the region include Peter Pan Bus Lines, King Ward Coach Lines and Laidlaw, Inc. c) Taxis There are 14 taxi companies operating in the region. All total, 3 of these companies are based in Springfield, with another 4 operating in Northampton, 4 in Amherst, and one company each in Easthampton, Holyoke, and West Springfield. Taxi companies provide a vital link in the transportation system by offering mobility during times and at locations where other transportation is not available. d) Uber/Lyft Uber and Lyft are ridesharing applications available in many major cities in the United States. Drivers register with the companies and advertise their availability to provide rides through the respective smartphone apps. Similarly, people looking for a ride can request one through the apps. The pricing structure is similar to metered taxis, but is billed completely through credit cards via the apps. Uber became available for communities in western Massachusetts in 2015, and Lyft in 2017. 6. Ridesharing The Pioneer Valley has a number of facilities, organizations and programs to help people share rides, either on public transportation or by private autos. Ride sharing is increasingly popular as more facilities and programs for it become available and the price of auto fuel fluctuates. There are several opportunities for ride sharing in the Pioneer Valley. These are summarized below. • Bay State Commute offers rewards to people who take greener trips. It provides ride matching services for people that would like to carpool to similar destinations. MassDOT’s sponsorship of Bay State Commute will end on June 30, 2019 and the service will then be sponsored by Agile Mile, Inc. • UMASS Rideshare helps University of Massachusetts employees and students form carpools, use the bus, or find other ways to get to

RTP Appendix

campus. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of private cars on campus; UMass has approximately 11,000 on campus parking spaces (not including metered spaces), but 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles come to campus each day. The service is free to employees and students and includes carpool matching, reduced parking fees, preferred parking spaces, free one-day passes, guaranteed rides home, and information on alternative commuter options. • Carpooling matching services in the area help people find fellow travelers who are traveling to similar destinations so they may share rides—either for regular daily commutes within the region, or for one- time long distance trips. An example of this service is RideBuzz (www.ridebuzz.org); many other people use online bulletin boards, such as Craigslist, to find carpooling partners. • Commercial car sharing provides a much needed alternative for private vehicle ownership to people desiring to live car free either by choice or necessity. While rural public transit provides its users with mobility through the Pioneer Valley, it faces limitations in frequency and access to outlying areas. Nationwide, car-sharing companies are considering partnerships with local organizations and community centers to help meet the needs of the low-income population. In our region, car sharing has been established in partnerships with academic institutions to mainly serve their student population and reduce demand for parking on college campuses. The car sharing program in our region is offered by Zipcar, a Massachusetts based car rental company. Currently their local fleet includes 32 vehicles scattered about the Pioneer Valley with the majority located within the Five Colleges area in Hampshire County. Zipcar vehicles are currently available in Amherst, Northampton, South Hadley, Holyoke, and Springfield. Depending on vehicle availability, members can rent by the hour or by the day. The Zipcar Company maintains a policy which gives its members access to any car available in their system at any location in the United States, Canada, and select cities around the world. Members can access the reservation system through a variety of ways including phone, internet, and text messaging. 7. Park and Ride In the Pioneer Valley, there are several officially designated and “informal” park and ride lots. Those using these lots may be leaving their cars to board a PVTA bus for a local trip, catch a Peter Pan bus for an intercity trip, or join a carpool for a local or long distance trip. These lots are described below. • Northampton Sheldon Field Lot—Bridge Street at Day Street. Connection with PVTA B43, M40 and 39. Designated by City of Northampton.

RTP Appendix

• Northampton Norwottuck Rail Trail Lot—Damon Road near Bridge Street (Route 9). Mainly used for carpooling; no convenient PVTA stop. Informal. • Northampton Veterans Administration Lot—421 N. Main St. Leeds. Designated by City of Northampton. Connection with PVTA R42, R44. • Springfield Trolley Park Lot—Main Street at Boylston Street. Connection with PVTA G1, G2, B4, G19, P20, P21). This lot is also near the intersection of I-91 and I-291, making it attractive for regional commuters who may not wish to drive in downtown Springfield. The lot is designated by City of Springfield but is currently closed and used as a construction staging area. • Ludlow MassPike Exit 7—Center Street (Route 21) at Cherry Street near MassPike (I-90) Exit 7. Two lots near the rear and center areas of the McDonalds parking lot. Used principally for carpooling and those parking to ride Peter Pan buses to Boston. Rear lot is formally designated; center lot is informal. • I-91 Exit 24— Median area in Whately near South Deerfield Center. Connection with PVTA Route 46. Formally designated but not counted by PVPC. There are also numerous “informal” park and ride lots, often at shopping malls and commercial businesses near major highway access points. A summary of average weekday park and ride usage at known lots is presented below:

Figure 5-12 – Park and Ride Lot Average Daily Occupancy 2010-2018

RTP Appendix

8. Passenger Rail The Springfield Union Station is currently served by 24 trains daily providing service in the northeastern U.S. and connections nationwide. Passenger rail service is provided on both East-West routes and North-South routes in the region. a) Southbound Services Most trains in Springfield operate south to New Haven as either Amtrak or CTRail trains. There are 11 departures and 11 arrivals on weekdays on this route, of which 4 are CTRail services, 6 are Amtrak Regional services, and 1 is the Amtrak Vermonter service. Amtrak provides daily through service on the Vermonter between Springfield and Washington D.C., with major stops at Hartford, New York City and Philadelphia. b) Northbound Services The Vermonter travels once a day in each direction between Washington D.C. and St. Albans Vermont. Northbound trains from Springfield stop at Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, following the restoration of passenger rail service on this corridor in late 2014. This expansion of intercity passenger rail has the potential to be a major component in producing economic revitalization, spurring job creation, improving air quality, increasing overall mobility and reducing vehicular traffic congestion. The highest ridership origin-destination pair along Amtrak’s entire Vermonter route in now Northampton to New York City averaging over 900 riders per year. c) Future Commuter Rail The relocation of the Amtrak service to the Connecticut River Line through Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield has proven very successful with annual ridership in FY 2017 approaching 28,000 riders. This represents a doubling of ridership compared to 2014 when the Vermonter stopped only in Amherst. Based off the success of this service, four additional trips per day are planned between Greenfield and Springfield. This new service will debut as a pilot program in the summer of 2019. d) East - West Service In addition to the Northeast Corridor service, there is also a long distance train that serves the region. The Lake Shore Limited serves Springfield by providing daily service between Chicago and Boston. The Pioneer Valley’s East-West service is limited by a situation common to many Amtrak routes. Amtrak leases the tracks it must use from a local freight railroad. Amtrak owns the trains but does not own the track and physical infrastructure that they travel on. The track and ultimate control over trains is

RTP Appendix

held by the host freight railroad. Here in the Pioneer Valley, CSX is the host freight railroad. Since CSX runs its own freight trains over tracks that are also used by Amtrak, opportunities for expanding service on the East-West line may be limited. Despite the obstacles, in December of 2018, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) began a study to examine the costs, benefits, and investments necessary to implement passenger rail service from Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield, with the speed, frequency, and reliability necessary to be a competitive option for travel along this corridor. The study will assess up to six alternatives, which will feature a range of approaches including high speed rail and potential infill stations. Members of an Advisory Committee comprised of the host railroad and civic and legislative members from the region and beyond, are working with MassDOT and a consultant team to advance this project.

D. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) utilizes technology in traffic control, communications, computer hardware and software to improve the performance of an existing transportation system. Through the dissemination of real-time travel information many benefits can be realized including increased safety, more efficient travel, and reduced congestion levels. The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Deployment Plan for the Metropolitan Springfield and Pioneer Valley Region was completed in 1998. In March of 2005, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts developed a Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture for Western Massachusetts. This Regional ITS Architecture identifies the existing and planned ITS components in the region and how they will interface. An update to the regional architecture was completed in 2010. MassDOT completed a status report on the deployment of ITS equipment in April 2014. 1. I-91 ITS Project MassDOT initiated a project to design and deploy a communications infrastructure and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) along the entire length of Interstate 91 and portions of Interstate 291. This project was completed in 2011 and includes: • 33 closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) and 17 Variable Message Signs • A fiber-optic communications network connecting the field devices to the District Traffic Operations Center (DTOC) in MassDOT District 2 Headquarters, and to the Statewide Traffic Operations Center (TOC) in Boston,

RTP Appendix

• I-91 camera monitoring equipment in the State Police facilities in Springfield, Northampton and Shelburne, • The development of additional capacity to address the needs of regional stakeholders via the installation of 4 empty conduits within the communications network, and • Communications shared resource infrastructure to support future private telecommunications initiatives.

Figure 5-13 – ITS Equipment Along I-91 in the Pioneer Valley

RTP Appendix

2. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority ITS Equipment All PVTA vehicles are equipped with a mobile data terminal, global positioning system (GPS) locator, data radio and emergency alarm. Paratransit vans also have audible and visual navigation assistance. Significant features of PVTA vehicles as a result of ITS technology include: • Automatic audio and visual stop announcements • Automatic passenger counters • Video and audio monitoring PVTA provides real time information on each bus route through the following website: http://bustracker.pvta.com/infopoint/ 3. 511 Access to 511 services for Massachusetts residents is available free of charge at: https://mass511.com/map#camera. Mass511.com allows drivers to set up custom travel alerts and receive real-time traffic information for all major routes. The website also includes a map with live-traffic conditions, planned construction events, and traffic incident updates. 4. Real Time Traffic Management MassDOT implemented a real time traveler information system called the Real Time Traffic Management (RTTM) system. The system calculates travel time between two or more points along the roadway and displays these live travel times in one minute updates on roadside variable message signs placed at key interchanges and decision points. The purpose of the RTTM system is to inform drivers of the distance and number of minutes it will likely take to travel from the message sign to their destination. This information is available from the following website: https://www.mass.gov/info- details/massachusetts-traffic-map 5. Smart Work Zone Management MassDOT utilizes ITS devices to monitor, measure and evaluate traffic conditions to provide real-time information to the public and control operations within active work zones. This equipment enables MassDOT personnel to gauge the impact of construction on existing traffic and enhance the safety and efficiency of the work zones. The use of SWZ technology is determined on a project-by-project basis. 6. EZDriveMA EZDriveMA is MassDOT’s all electronic tolling system. The system opened on opened October 28, 2016 and is available in the Pioneer Valley region on

RTP Appendix

the Massachusetts Turnpike. All tolls are assessed electronically at a series of gantries via an approved transponder or by “Pay by Plate” license plate recognition. For more information see: https://www.ezdrivema.com/.

E. NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Bicycling and walking are inextricably linked to quality of life in our communities. The Pioneer Valley region affords some of the best environments for walking and bicycling in the Commonwealth. An expanding network of off-road trails, vibrant downtowns laced with sidewalks and scenic shared-use roadways create an unmatched potential. As a destination or as a place to call home, the Pioneer Valley offers a wide range of transportation choices. A focus of this plan is on the design and construction of projects and the implement programs that improve safety and encourage bicycling and walking people of all ages and abilities. Interest and enthusiasm for walking and bicycling is reshaping many of our communities and not just through traditional infrastructure improvements. 2019 marks the 20th year for Bike Week in the Pioneer Valley. Valley Bike will launch a second season in 2019 with 55 stations and a goal of 540 bikes. Currently, 83 schools in the Pioneer Valley activity participate in the Massachusetts “Safe Routes to School Programs” and a walking school bus is a reality at Springfield’s Rebecca Johnson School where parents and the administrator have implemented a “Safe Routes to School” program. Students and faculty at Southampton William E. Norris School have a new shared used path and improved sidewalk connections to their school while middle school students at Montessori School of Northampton can access their school through the new MassCentral Rail Trail tunnel off of Woodmont Road under the active Amtrak line. As of April 2019, 38 communities have participated in complete streets training through Baystate Roads. The most significant challenge for advancing regional goals for bicycling and walking is funding. While new funding opportunities exist in a revised Safe Routes to School infrastructure program, the MassTrails Program, and Complete Streets Program many communities struggle to find the resources to plan, design, implement and maintain shares use paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes. The Massachusetts Heathy Design Directive and other state guidelines support bicycle and walking and federal programs are recognizing the importance of “context sensitive design” in transportation; infrastructure needs are growing while funding options leave communities struggling to keep up. The most dramatic impact has been at the municipal level. Many of our communities have serious transportation funding gaps. Sidewalks, bridges and locally maintained roads have fallen into disrepair and gaps in funding for the maintenance of this infrastructure is significant. Because RTP Appendix

bicycling and walking is inherently dependent on short local trips the lack of maintenance is a real threat. Several national trends are negatively impacting walking and bicycling in the Region. The reliance on personal handheld devices has expanded rapidly. In Massachusetts (with the exception of those under 18) cell phone use is allowed as long as one hand is on the steering wheel. Distracted driving contributes significantly in bicycle and pedestrian fatalities. The Massachusetts legislature is currently (2019) reviewing revisions to the laws to help address this significant issue. Another trend has been the increase in the use of sport utility vehicles. The larger vehicles are increasingly seen as a contributing to bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and more information is need. While the region’s population remained fairly stable the preference for SUVs has grown. While many communities such as Springfield and Amherst have very "walkable" downtown areas, the traffic volumes in and around suburban communities continue to create significant obstacles and challenges for those bicycling or walking. The most perplexing challenge has been the regulation of traffic speeds. Travel speed on our streets should be set at a rate that is in the best interest of the public's and enforceable by police. In 2017 MassDOT adopted new procedures for speed zoning that allows municipalities to adopt statutory speed limits. As of 2019 the communities of Springfield, Chicopee and Holyoke have adopted statutory speed limits. The 2017 provision also allows communities to establish “safety zones” at a speed limit of 20 mph in accordance with the MassDOT Procedures for Speed Zoning. To support the increasing number of people who walk and bike, the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has adopted this update to the RTP that includes policy-related actions and physical projects that local, state, federal and regional partners can collaborate on to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. The plan includes recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian features in the design and reconstruction of roadway projects, sets goals for bicycle and pedestrian safety, and promotes bicycling and walking through “Complete Street” initiatives. The Pioneer Valley land use plan “Valley Vision” includes zoning and community development tools to foster environments that support bicycling and walking. Valley Vision lays out a detailed strategy to promote bicycling and walking through compact, mixed use growth in and around urban, town, and village centers.

RTP Appendix

1. Complete Streets In 2016 MassDOT launched the Complete Street Funding Program to incentivize municipal best practice in Complete Streets policy and implementation. To date, 38 communities have participated in MassDOT sponsored Complete Streets training and 18 communities have actively participated in the Complete Streets Program. Through the program our communities have initiated projects to make local streets safer and more inviting for people to walk, run, and bike. These efforts will improve the health of Pioneer Valley residents through improved opportunities stay active, reducing chronic disease. As of 2019, 12 communities: Williamsburg, Amherst, South Hadley, Holyoke, Easthampton, Northampton, Holyoke, West Springfield, Agawam, Springfield, Longmeadow, and Granville have adopted Complete Streets Policies. Locally, many Pioneer Valley communities have followed MassDOT’s lead by incorporating “Complete Streets” concepts into the planning and design of local road projects. The Cities of Holyoke, Northampton and Springfield have adopted a Complete Streets Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Similarly, the Towns of Amherst and South Hadley also have adopted bicycle and pedestrian plans. Streets are a vital part of livable, attractive communities. Regardless of age, ability, income, race, or ethnicity, everyone is served by safe, comfortable, and convenient access to community destinations and public places–whether walking, driving, bicycling, or taking public transportation. Complete Streets integrates people and place in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our transportation networks. In 2006 MassDOT completed an overhaul of the state’s highway design manual and with the new “Project Development and Design Guide” the Commonwealth instituted a comprehensive shift in policy. The “Design Guide’ has become a national model for developing better road and bridge projects through a “Complete Streets” approach that balances the need for access and mobility through context sensitive design solutions. The manual “ensures that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g. children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way.”

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-14 – Municipal Status of Complete Streets in the Pioneer Valley

2. Bicycle Facilities and Initiatives Currently seventeen communities provide over 90 miles of bicycle lanes, multi-use paths or “rail trails” in the region, while several communities have similar projects in the design phase. The Pioneer Valley has much to offer for bicycling including; bike lanes, shared use paths, sidepaths, striped shoulders, wide curb lanes, bike racks on transit, bike lockers, bike parking racks, employer sponsored shower facilities, bike repair shops, maps and online rider resources, community bike share programs, bike rentals, organized rides, and sponsored races. Not far from the region’s urban core, the rural roads of Western Massachusetts offer a vast array of quite scenic New England country roads that can be explored for days on end. At the same time, our communities face challenges in meeting public expectations in expanding and connecting the Region’s bikeway network. Many of the off-road and on-road facilities are disconnected are hampered by pinch points that include bridges. RTP Appendix

a) On-road Infrastructure Massachusetts law requires that bicyclists and pedestrians be accommodated on all roadways except limited access or express state highways. Currently there are 45 miles of designated on-road bicycle facilities. These include bike lanes and designated bike lanes and bike routes in Agawam, Amherst, Brimfield, Granby, Holland, Holyoke, Monson, Northampton, South Hadley, Springfield, and Wales. Many more of these bicycle design treatments are in the planning stages as communities work to implement “complete street” approaches to design. A major concern for pedestrians and bicyclists are the many bridges in the region. While most new or reconstructed bridge projects have followed state and federal guidelines for improving pedestrian and bicycle access, many bridges still lack sidewalks, and adequate shoulder width. The design and maintenance of these bridges directly influences the ability of people to walk or bicycle. b) Bicycle Compatibility Index PVPC frequently uses the FHWA Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) to evaluate road conditions for bicyclists. The BCI uses data collected on the roadway including travel lane width, shoulder width, vehicle speed, traffic volume and parking along each roadway segment. The FHWA analysis tool assigns an alphanumeric score to each roadway segment ("A" through "F"). "A" roads represent "perfect" roads for bicycling and "F" is the least favorable. In the Pioneer Valley Region data has been collected for all the federal aid roadways. The BCI data is a useful tool for bicycle coordinators, transportation planners, traffic engineers, and others to evaluate existing facilities in order to determine what improvements may be required as well as determine the geometric and operational requirements for new facilities to achieve the desired level of bicycle service. The BCI model has been used for the following applications in the Region: • Springfield Complete Streets Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan • South Hadley Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan • Granby Master Plan • Southampton Route 10 Corridor Study • Pioneer Valley Regional Bicycle Map c) Bicycle Parking Improvements The PVPC has worked with local communities to upgrade and expand existing opportunities for bicycle parking. Through a series of Transportation Demand Management funding commitments, PVPC has worked with local

RTP Appendix

communities to install parking for more than 700 bicycles. Parking racks have included “U” style racks, ribbon racks, “rib” racks and bicycle lockers. In 2014 PVPC purchased institutional bicycle racks for several “Save Routes to School” partner schools in Springfield. In 2015 PVTA initiated a bike rack purchase program to locate bike racks at high frequency bus stop locations. PVPC also coordinated the purchase of bike lockers for use at park-and-ride facilities. To assist in the installation of bike racks PVPC created a series of training videos. These and other videos are available on the PVPC YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um6oagL7bfk d) Existing Bike Share and Bike Rental Programs Bike sharing programs are increasingly popular in North America and around the world. PVPC received $87,000 a local technical assistance grant for a feasibility study and preparation in 2016 and 2017. The Pioneer Valley MPO supported $1.3 million in funding from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program in 2017 for the creation of ValleyBike, a docked system in Northampton, Holyoke, South Hadley, Springfield, and Amherst (including the University of Massachusetts). ValleyBike officially launched on June 28th, 2018 and remained open until November 30th hosting a total of 26,353 rides. An average of 167 bikes were available at any given time throughout the season at 43 stations. The ValleyBike program is designed to have 500 bikes available at 50 stations throughout the region. Twenty-six stations were opened at the launch in June and 17 more opened in July and August. The remaining seven stations should be opened in Year Two. There are roughly 535 bike-sharing programs globally, with an estimated fleet of 517,000 bicycles. In addition to ValleyBike, several bike share and rental programs are in operation in the Pioneer Valley. While these programs have different cost structures, equipment, and rental times than a public bike share system, they demonstrate that Pioneer Valley residents and visitors are interested in the convenience of using bicycles without having to make a permanent purchase. Current programs include: • Private rental companies – Two bicycle shops in the Pioneer Valley offer bike rentals. Northampton Bicycle offers rental of town bikes for $25 for 1 day, $50 for 3 days, and $90 for 7 days, and road bike rentals for $35 for 1 day, $70 for 3 days, $130 for 7 days. Hampshire Bicycle Exchange in Amherst offers rentals of $35 for 1 day or $70 for 7 days if the bicycle has a price less than $350. For bicycles that cost greater than $350, the cost is 10 percent of the price per day, or 25 percent of the cost of the bike per week. Because the Hampshire Bicycle Exchange both buys and sells used bicycles, it is possible to “rent” a

RTP Appendix

bicycle for a few months by purchasing and selling it back to the store. Both shops provide a lock and helmet with the cost of the rental. • Smith College Bike Kitchen – the Bike Kitchen, open since 2005, offers Smith students and faculty with maintenance service, bike rentals, and safety education. Rentals are available for $20 per semester and include a lock and helmet. The program’s 40 bicycles are in high demand and there is a waitlist to use the program. • Pioneer Valley Riverfront Club – The PVRC offers children and adult bicycle rentals for $5 per hour. Because the rentals are on an hourly basis, they are primarily meant for short-term, recreational use on the Connecticut River Walk, which is adjacent to the PVRC. Three- wheeled bicycles are also available for those who cannot ride a bike. e) Bicycle Accommodations on Transit The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority supports a popular “Rack and Roll” bikes-on-buses program to the entire region. All fixed route buses in the PVTA fleet (40 routes/180 busses) are equipped with racks, allowing cyclists to transport their bikes on public service transit lines throughout much of Hampden and Hampshire County. In 2017 the PVTA bike racks were used 62,778 times (excluding UMass shuttle trips). Installation of a bicycle on a PVTA bus

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-15 – PVTA Bikes on Bus Usage

The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority’s bikes on bus program “Rack and Roll” has dramatically improved access for bicyclists to transit and given thousands of people another choice in their mode of travel. Increased marketing and promotion for the service included an instructional video to acclimate new users. The video is available online in English and in Spanish at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNcW-ZaoEfg f) Off-road Infrastructure (Shared Used and Multi-use Trails/Paths) Off-road facilities include shared-use paths, sidepaths, rail with trail, traditional bikepaths, and rail trails are popular in the region for a number of reasons. These facilities allow new users to be introduced to the benefits of walking and bicycling while isolating them from potential conflicts with motorized traffic. These facilities provide economic benefits through bicycle tourism and downtown retail and restaurants through foot traffic while reducing dependence on motor vehicle parking. Our strongest downtown business districts are in census blocks groups with the highest levels of walking and bicycling. The Norwottuck Branch of the MassCentral Rail Trail is one example of the region’s commitment to bicycling and walking. The ten-mile Norwottuck Trail links the communities of Northampton, Hadley, Amherst, and Belchertown, and facilitates travel to and from educational institutions, downtown commercial areas, major employment centers and residential neighborhoods. Weekend traffic counts show an average of 1,200 people per day utilize the Trail during the peak season which includes when local colleges and the

RTP Appendix

University of Massachusetts, Amherst are in session. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) reconstructed the original 1992 “Norwottuck Rail Trail” (now part of the MassCemtral Rail Trail) in June 2015 after 2 years of construction. The reconstructed path is wider in most places, incorporate a number of accessibility and intersection improvements including re-decked the bridges. In 2018 construction was completed on a MassDOT tunnel project by Northern Construction Services. The $4.4 million tunnel under the active north-south Amtrak rail corridor provides significant connection between the MassCentral Rail Trail and the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway and the Manhan Rail Trail. In 2019 the Town of West Springfield opened the newest section of the Connecticut River addresses a need for visual access to the river while providing improved access to canoe launch. The popularity of share use paths in the Pioneer Valley has brought new challenges and opportunities to those that use and manage these facilities. Interest in year round use has pushed many communities to explore options for snow removal, and while recreation use still dominates trail activity many residents increasingly use the facilities for non-recreational trips. In 2018 PVPC commissioned a study of at-grade crossing on shared-use-paths to better understand the safety challenges that these unique intersections present.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-14 – Existing On and Off-road Infrastructure in the Pioneer Valley Region (draft) Pioneer Valley Bicycle Facility Communities on/off Length Date road (in miles) Opened CT. River Riverwalk and Bikeway Agawam off 1.50 9/17/04 Amherst Bike Route Amherst on 1.00 Amherst Bikeway (Route 116) Amherst off 3.50 Five College Bikeway Amherst on 6.00 South Pleasant St. Bike Lanes Amherst on 0.25 7/15/01 UMass Connector Bikeway Amherst off 1.90 5/15/03 Norwottuck Belchertown Extension Amherst/Belchertown off 1.20 5/12/00 Chicopee Center Canal Walk Chicopee off 0.20 5/21/10 Redstone Rail Trail East Longmeadow off 1.57 9/9/10 Manhan Rail Trail Easthampton off 4.20 6/19/04 Dwight Street Bike Lanes Holyoke on 0.50 6/12/05 Hampden Street Bike Lanes Holyoke on 0.60 5/13/04 Route 5 Bike Lanes Holyoke on 1.20 7/8/06 Holyoke Canalwalk Holyoke off 0.30 6/25/10 Route 5 Bike Route Holyoke/Northampton on 8.00 6/25/86 Springfield (Ludlow) Reservoir Trail Ludlow off 3.10 MBW Trail Monson, Brimfield, Wales on 17.00 6/10/98 Elm Street Bike Lanes Northampton on 0.80 6/15/00 New Haven and Northampton Canal Rail Trail Northampton off 2.10 7/1/05 MassCentral Rail Trail Northampton off 2.50 6/6/84 Rocky Hill Trail Northampton off 0.50 Norwottuck Damon Road to Woodmont Northampton off 0.80 5/1/08 Norwottuck Look Park Extension to Grove St Northampton off 2.00 7/1/05 South Street Bike Lanes Northampton on 1.10 9/10/03 Northampton Canal/MassCentral Rail Trail Northampton off 1.00 9/26/89 Norwottuck Rail Trail Northampton/Hadley/Amherst off 8.50 5/15/93 Southwick Rails to Trails Phase I Southwick off 3.14 5/3/10 CT. River Riverwalk and Bikeway Springfield off 3.70 7/18/03 Westfield Riverwalk Westfield off 2.00 4/16/98 116 Five College Bike Lane Extension Granby/South Hadley on .25 4/25/15 Columbia Greenway (segment 2, 3) Westfield off Tunnel MassCentral Manhan Rail Trail Northampton off .10 2018 CT. River Riverwalk and Bikeway West Springfield off 2019 Ludlow Mills Riverwalk Ludlow off Agawam Connector Loop Bikeway Agawam on/off East Hadley Road Sidepath Amherst off 2019 Route 116 Sidepath Amherst off Total Mileage 90.56

RTP Appendix

Table 5-15 – Proposed Bikepaths for the PVPC Region (draft) Pioneer Valley Bicycle Facility Communities on/off road North Campus Bikeway Extension Amherst on/off Amherst Bike Route Amherst on Five College Bikeway (including Notch) Amherst, Granby, South Hadley on/off Brimfield Trail Expansion Brimfield on/off CT. River Riverwalk and Bikeway Chicopee off Chicopee Center Canal Walk Chicopee off Redstone Rail Trail Extension East Longmeadow off Route 47 Scenic Farm Bikeway Hadley, South Hadley on CT River Greenway (Damon Rd. to Elm Court) Hatfield/Northampton off Appleton Street Bikeway Improvements Holyoke on Holyoke Canalwalk (segments 2 and 3) Holyoke off Holyoke Canalwalk Route 5 extension Holyoke/Northampton on/off Elm Street Bikeway Extension Northampton on/off Manhan Route 10 Spur to Burts Pit Rd Northampton off Village Hill to Northampton High School Northampton off Damon Road bicycle lanes and sidewalks Northampton on Southampton Greenway Southampton off McKnight Neighborhood Trail Springfield off Ware River Valley Rail Trail Ware on/off CT. River Riverwalk and Bikeway extension West Springfield off Columbia Greenway (segment X) Westfield off Western Avenue Bikeway Westfield on/off g) Bicycle Signage Projects The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in collaboration with the City of Springfield, and other Live Well Springfield partners installed new map signs on the Connecticut Riverwalk and Bikeway in Springfield. In partnership with WalkBoston and with funding through Mass-in-Motion 151 pedestrian wayfinding signs with distance markers were installed in Springfield Wayfinding Sign Springfield, Belchertown and Northampton. PVPC has worked with MassDOT and local partners to install bike route signs along Route 5 in Holyoke, install “share the road” signs in on many popular Manhan Trail Guide Sign cycling routes, installed directional signs in Northampton, and installed signs on the Connecticut Riverwalk and Bikeway.

RTP Appendix

PVPC also partnered with MassDOT and DCR on the installation of “Bay State Greenway” signs on the Manhan Rail Trail, the Southwick Rail Trail, Norwottuck Rail Trail and sections of Route 9 in Williamsburg. h) Pioneer Valley Share the Road Program The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in collaboration with with the Franklin Regional Council of Governments to produce a series of public service announcement and informational video on bicycling and bicycle safety entitled “Enjoy the Ride: Share the Road in the Connecticut River Valley” The effort is part of a promotional campaign to Share the Road video screen capture encourage bicycling instead of driving. The FRCOG and PVPC received $150,000 in funding to enhance bicycling in the regional, increase accessibility and awareness for commuting by bicycle in Franklin, Hampshire, and Hamden Counties. The goal of the project is to reduce the number of automobile trips by encouraging transportation by bicycle instead. The videos were aired annually on local cable access channels during Bay State Bike Week and can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/b_0aJ61T8Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eiye4XHMh8&feature=youtu.be i) Massachusetts Bicycle Plan The Massachusetts Bicycle Plan was updated by MassDOT in 2019. The Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board in coordination with MassDOT began the process of revising and updating both the Bicycle Plan and the Pedestrian Plan. The plan prioritizes on- and off-road bicycling improvements and identifies a statewide bicycling network. The network improves multi-modal transportation generally and bicycle transportation specifically, as well as recreation, tourism, and economic vitality. Priority corridor such as the MassCentral and New Haven Northampton Canal Line Greenway are The Bay State Greenway are identified in the plan. j) Walking and Older Adults In the Pioneer Valley Region, people over 65 the fastest growing age group. Older individuals are more likely to be injured while walking. Access to transit, and mobility can be significant challenges for seniors. k) Mass-in-Motion Mass in Motion is a statewide program that “promotes opportunities for healthy eating and active living in the places people live, learn, work and play.” Sixty communities across the state are Mass in Motion communities.

RTP Appendix

Eight of those are in the Pioneer Valley Region and include Amherst, Belchertown, Northampton and Williamsburg (working under the name, Healthy Hampshire), Holyoke, Springfield, and West Springfield and Palmer. The City of Northampton is the lead agency for the four 'Healthy Hampshire' communities, and the cities of Holyoke and Springfield secured funds directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH). The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission collaborated with the health agents in Palmer and West Springfield, to help these communities become Mass in Motion communities. These cities and towns are actively working toward health in all policies, increasing awareness of walking and bicycling opportunities in the community, improving safety for walkers and bicyclists, and working to increase access to healthy food through community gardens, working with local restaurants to assure healthy dining options and working with corner stores to assure healthy food options throughout each community. 3. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian access and circulation are typically better in town or city centers due to the physical design of such places. Shops, offices, restaurants and other amenities are generally clustered together and connected by a pedestrian network which is often more accessible and efficient than the vehicle network. The central business districts of Amherst, Northampton and Springfield offer good examples of downtowns sensitive to pedestrian circulation and access. Sidewalks and walkways are extensive; crosswalks are signalized and access points for persons with disabilities are incorporated. Sidewalks are the most common infrastructure feature devoted to pedestrian circulation. Whether or not sidewalks are provided in a community can influence the area's overall character and function. In addition to the sidewalks themselves, crosswalks and points of access for persons with disabilities can influence the degree to which these pedestrian networks facilitate circulation. The provision of sidewalks in the region varies with respect to location, quality and function. Many communities in the Pioneer Valley have realized the benefit of encouraging walking through infrastructure improvements. The Town of Ludlow constructed sidewalks within a mile of every elementary school. With children walking to school the town revamped its crossing guard program and saved money on busing. With local funding sources in short supply, many communities have had to “get smart” when it comes to pedestrian improvements. To lower costs, East Longmeadow developed a prioritized sidewalk infrastructure improvement plan and began incorporating the cost of sidewalk improvements into larger roadway re-

RTP Appendix

construction projects. In the Forest Park neighborhood of Springfield, public works officials replaced painted crosswalks with new long wearing thermoplastic designs. While more expensive initially, the new crosswalks will last 5 times as long as painted crosswalks. a) Safe Routes to School The Massachusetts Safe Routes to School program promotes healthy alternatives for children and parents in their travel to and from school. The program aims to reduce congestion, air pollution, and traffic conflicts near participating schools, while improving health and mobility of school-aged children population. Safe Routes to School is a national movement to create safe, convenient, and fun opportunities for children to bicycle and walk to and from schools. The program's goal is to reverse the decline in children walking or biking to schools. Nationally, only 15 percent of schoolchildren walk or bike to school compared to 50 percent in the 1950’s. The vast majority of parents prefer to drop their children off at school using their personal automobile. The result is often increased congestion and higher vehicle emissions around the schools. 83 schools in the Pioneer Valley activity participate in the Massachusetts “Safe Routes to School Programs promoting healthy alternatives for children and parents in their travel to and from school. The program educates students, parents and community members on the value of walking and bicycling and provides funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic calming measures. Funding for construction projects is also available through the Safe Routes to School Program. School that have participated in this program in the past include the William E. Norris School in Southampton, Jackson Street School in Northampton, Doering and Robinson Park Schools in Agawam, Blueberry Hill School in Longmeadow, and Bridge Street School in Northampton. The “revised” Safe Routes to School program also includes funding for painting and markings in the “lines and signs” part of the program.

PVPC purchased bike racks through the Live Well Springfield Community Transformation Grant to support the “The Safe Routes to School Program” in Springfield. The Springfield Safe Routes Massachusetts Safe Routes to School logo to School program is coordinated by the Springfield Safe Routes to School Alliance and is supported by the Springfield Housing Authority, the Talk/Read/Succeed program, Baystate Health Safe Kids program and Brightwood Health Center, the state Department of Public

RTP Appendix

Health, Springfield Health and Human Services, Mass in Motion, Partners for a Healthier Community, the YMCA of Greater Springfield and other groups. Statewide the Massachusetts Safe Routes to School program supports a number of initiatives. These initiatives include “Walking School Bus”, “Footloose Fridays”, “Fuel up to Play” and several educational campaigns. The Massachusetts Safe Routes to School Program is a central source of Safe Routes services to all interested schools in the state and currently provides services to 43% of public K-8 schools. The program provides safety trainings, classroom visits, presentations to parents and community members, special events, encouragement programs, free promotional items, infrastructure improvements and summer programs. Three communities in the Pioneer Valley received funding as part of the 2019 Massachusetts Safe Routes to School Program. Funding was awarded to the Robinson Park School and Roberta Doering School in Agawam, Blueberry Hill Elementary School in Longmeadow, and Bridge Street Elementary School in Northampton. 4. Advocacy and Local Organizing Committees The Pioneer Valley has a long history of strong support and advocacy for bicycling. RadSpringfield is a volunteer-run bike shop in Springfield. Springfield is the largest city in New England without a commercial bike shop and RadSpringfield fills for the purchase of bikes, skill development and community. Several communities in the Pioneer Valley have established bike advocacy or trails groups that Photo of RadSpringfield volunteer their time and expertise to promote and improve bicycle facilities while supporting strong bicycle culture. Some of these include, Williamsburg Mill River Greenway Committee, Holyoke Bike/Walk Committee, Walk/Bike Springfield, UMass Cycling Club, Pioneer Valley NEMBA, Friends of the Belchertown Greenway, Brimfield Trail Association, MassCentral Rail Trail Coalition, East Quabbin Land Trust, Mill River Greenway Initiative Group, Northampton Cycling Club, Springfield Cyclonauts, MassBike Pioneer Valley, Friends of the Columbia Greenway Trail, WalkBike Springfield, Friends of the Manhan Rail Trail, Friends of Northampton Trails and Greenways to name just a few.

RTP Appendix

5. Recreational Activities Nestled among the forests, farmland, and mountains on the banks of the Connecticut River, the Pioneer Valley is ideally suited for recreational hiking and biking. Our small towns and larger city neighborhoods are where you find great coffee shops, historically preserved buildings, fun music, crowds of young and the young at heart, a strong local food movement, first-rate museums and art galleries, eccentric shops, eclectic restaurants, and residents eager to get outdoors in any season. a) Regional Hiking Trail Map and Other Guides The popularity of bicycling in the Pioneer Valley has led to the creation of a several guidebooks specific to the region including the Rubel Bike Map to Western Massachusetts, Bicycle Touring in the Pioneer Valley (Nancy Jane), Bicycling the Pioneer Valley (Marion Gorhan), Touring Jacob's Ladder by Bicycle or Car (PVPC) and Jacob's Ladder Trail Western Region Off-road Bicycle and Trail Guide (PVPC). The “Pioneer Valley Trails: A Hiking and Biking Guide,” was released for sale at area book stores and outdoor recreation retailers in 2010. The guide shows the locations of many hiking and biking trails in Hampden and Hampshire counties. The guide features a map on one side, showing the locations of 47 trails. The reverse side includes descriptions of each of the trails, including their location, whether they are paved or off-road, the length, types of permitted uses, and parking information. The guide is available many bookstores throughout the region and also available online at http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/2010-trail-hike-guide-sml.pdf ) b) Tourism and Commerce The growing support of regional cycling businesses is testimony to the unique quality and growing popularity of bicycling in the Pioneer Valley. The region is also home to a local fixed base touring companies such as River's Edge Cycling and hosts nationally ranked races such as the Verge Northampton International Cyclocross. Local bicycle shops provide a critical supporting role and many are active advocates and partners in the community and many such as New Horizons Bikes in Westfield have hosted numerous events, annual rides, and activities during bike week. Joe’s Garage in Haydenville, Competitive Edge, Northampton Bicycle, Full Circle Bike Shop, Peak Performance Bicycles, Pro Bike, FJ Roberts, Valley Bike & Ski Werks, Hampshire Bicycle Exchange, New England Bicycle, Custom Cycle Bike Shop and Laughing Dog Bicycles are just a few of the many bike shops that play a critical role in supporting a vibrant cycling economy.

RTP Appendix

6. Massachusetts Pedestrian Plan The Massachusetts completed an update to Pedestrian Plan in 2019. The plan identifies a set of initiatives and related actions to address identified needs. The six initiatives include: • Initiative 1: Promote pedestrian safety, accessibility, and connectivity in investment decision-making and project development. • Initiative 2: Establish a set of prioritized pedestrian projects on MassDOT-owned roadways and bridges to address critical safety, accessibility, and connectivity gaps. • Initiative 3: Slow vehicle speeds and improve visibility of people walking. • Initiative 4: Improve pedestrian accessible paths of travel to transit. • Initiative 5: Launch a year-round maintenance and operations plan for MassDOT-owned pedestrian facilities and support municipalities to do the same. • Initiative 6: Invest in data collection to inform initiatives 1-5 and to track progress. In addition to the Plan, a companion document was created, called the Municipal Resource Guide for Walkability. The purpose of the guide is to support cities and towns in their efforts to improve walkability. 7. MassDOT's ADA/Section 504 Transition Plan MassDOT completed a comprehensive evaluation of its policies, programs, services and facilities to determine the extent to which individuals with disabilities may be restricted in their access to these services and activities. MassDOT’s ADA/Section 504 Transition Plan guides the planning and implementation of necessary program, activity and facility modifications over the next several years, which will expand on previous work. This work has included an extensive inventory of sidewalk ramps on jurisdictional roadways (over 35,000 ramps) as part of the ADA/Section 504 Self Evaluation and Prioritization. The data from this inventory is available on Cartegraph's VersaView.

RTP Appendix

F. AVIATION The Pioneer Valley is well served by air transportation facilities located within or adjacent to the region. Most air travel from the region goes through Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut situated 15 miles south of the City of Springfield. Within the Pioneer Valley there are also a number of airports, the largest of which is the Westover Air Reserve Base and Metropolitan Airport facility in Chicopee and Ludlow. The second largest airport in the region is Westfield- Barnes Airport located and operated by the City of Westfield. It is the third busiest airport in Massachusetts, a general aviation facility home of the Air National Guard 104th Tactical Fighter Group. The remaining airport in the region, the Northampton Airport, is privately owned and operated with much smaller and less sophisticated facilities. This airport serves both business and recreational uses. 1. Public Airports a) Bradley International Airport Bradley Airport located in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, is a state-owned facility that is operated by the Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA). It is New England's second largest airport, serving Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, and was designated as a medium hub airport by the Civil Aeronautics Board. The airport opened as an Army Air Corps Base in 1941. After World War II it was taken over by the State of Connecticut and was converted to a commercial facility under the name Bradley Field. The name was changed to Bradley International Airport in the 1960s after a 9,500 foot paved runway was opened to accommodate jet aircraft. There are currently three runways and 17 taxiways. The total land area of the airport is approximately 2,000 acres. The airport, located 15 miles south of the City of Springfield, is the principal commercial airport serving people traveling to and from the Pioneer Valley Region. The nine major airlines that currently serve Bradley Airport are Aer Lingus, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, Jet Blue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Spirit, and United Airlines. Bradley provides regular International service to two cities in Canada; Montreal and Toronto, as well as international flights to Dublin, Ireland; Cancun, Mexico; and, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Approximately 256 (2016) daily flights make Bradley the second busiest New England Airport Behind Logan International Airport in Boston (1,062). The

RTP Appendix

airport served 4,977,062 travelers in 2018 which is 3.9% higher than the 4,791,884 travelers served in 2017. There are no landing/takeoff limitations or nighttime operational curfews. The airport can handle all types of commercial aircraft including Boeing 747,and the Russian-built Antonov, the largest passenger aircraft in the world. Table 5-16 – Bradley Airport Operational Statistics Aircraft Based on Field 64 Aircraft Operations: Average Per Day 256* Single Engine Airplanes 4 Commercial 61% Multi Engine Airplanes 2 Air Taxi 21% Jet Airplanes 31 Transient General Aviation 15% Helicopters 7 Military 3% Military Aircraft 20 Local General Aviation <1% * for 12-month period ending 1 March 2016 Source: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBDL The State of Connecticut employs approximately 100 people at Bradley Airport. Salaries are paid through the Bradley Enterprise Fund, which does not use taxpayer funds. Approximately 27,000 jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on airport operations. Bradley Airport generates 4 billion in economic activity yearly with $1.2 billion being in the form of wages. Bradley Airport is well located to provide easy air access to both the Springfield and Hartford metropolitan areas. For more information on the airport please visit their website http://www.bradleyairport.com/index.shtml. b) Westfield-Barnes Municipal Airport Westfield-Barnes is a public airport operated by the City of Westfield and is the home base for the Massachusetts Air National Guard 104th Fighter Wing. The Region's second largest airport is located within the boundaries of the City of Westfield, north of Westfield's central business district and adjacent to the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90). The airport is also within minutes of I-91. A total of about 1200 acres are owned by the facility. Approximately 600 acres are presently developed with pavement, hangers and airport buildings. The airport is classified by the Massachusetts Airport System Plan as a general aviation airport providing general aviation service. It serves virtually all aircraft, including commercial jet liners and large, heavy and wide body aircraft. It is capable of handling precision instrument approach operations. The airport consists of two asphalt runways: 02/20 and 15/33. Runway 15/33 is a visual runway that is 5,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lights. The primary runway 02/20 is 9,000 feet long and 150 feet wide and equipped with high intensity runway lighting and precision instrument approaches.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-17 – Barnes Airport Operational Statistics Aircraft Based on Field 129 Aircraft Operations: Average Per Day 113* Single Engine Airplanes 100 Transient General Aviation 49% Multi Engine Airplanes 6 Local General Aviation 34% Jet Airplanes 4 Military 16% Military Aircraft 18 Air Taxi 2% Helicopters 1 Commercial <1% * for 12-month period ending 31 December 2016 Source: www.airnav.com/airport/KBAF Land-side development is concentrated in three quadrants: The Southwest quadrant, houses general aviation functions as well as fixed-base operators, based aircraft storage facilities, transient aircraft parking, and airport and Federal Aviation Administration administrative facilities. The Northwest quadrant consists of the land leased to the Massachusetts Air National Guard (MANG) and Army Aviation Services. Located within this quadrant are the MANG facilities, aircraft parking aprons, alert facilities, hangars, operations buildings, and office space. The F-15’s on base now have a 24/7 air sovereignty alert mission. An industrial park is also planned for this area of the airport. In addition, the army aviation support facility operates here with two large hangars, 6 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 operations buildings. Up until September 2007, the 131st Fighter Squadron (131 FS), 104th Fighter Wing (104 FW) of the Massachusetts Air National Guard at Westfield, operated 25 A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft until they were realigned through the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) of 2005. The 104th changed its mission from Close Air Support to Air Superiority, and its A- 10 aircraft were redistributed to other fighter units as a result of BRAC. The 104 FW has now received 15 F-15 Eagles from the former 102nd Fighter Wing. The Northeast quadrant is the home of General Dynamics Aviation Services, a subsidiary of Gulfstream, which provides a full service maintenance facility to corporate aircraft with its four hangars and one support facility. For more information on the airport please visit their website http://www.barnesairport.com c) Westover Air Reserve Base and Metropolitan Airport Westover is a Joint-use Civilian and Military airport. Located in the City of Chicopee the Westover Airport is strategic to the State and Federal aviation systems. Situated in the heart of the “Knowledge Corridor” in Western

RTP Appendix

Massachusetts, with a population of 600,000 within a thirty-mile radius, Westover Airport is a unique public use airport. While Westover’s main runway is large enough to have been on the list of backup locations for landing the Space Shuttle, the airfield remains spacious enough for virtually any type of aircraft. It is also flexible enough to welcome the emergence of the Very Light Jet era and all other General Aviation air traffic. Opened originally in 1940 as a World War II training base geographically positioned for European missions, the airport is one of the nation’s most successful Joint-use, Civilian and Military facilities. Westover continues its Military use as home to the Air Force Reserve’s 439th Airlift Wing. Under the Joint-use agreement the US Air Force retains the responsibilities for the runways, two Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), and a state-of-the-art air traffic control tower. The Westover Airport (civilian) has responsibility for 3 taxiways, its 13 large hangars, a fully equipped passenger terminal and overall civilian aviation operations. Westover Airport is a navigational hub, located between Boston, Albany and the greater New York City region. By air, all major North American and Western European cities easily reached within hours. The global marketplace is within easy reach of the Westover Airport. Westover Airport proudly demonstrates daily its importance to our region’s economy and the State’s transportation system. Table 5-18 – Westover Airport Operational Statistics Aircraft Based on Field 36 Aircraft Operations: Average Per Day 54* Single Engine Airplanes 14 Military 73.16% Multi Engine Airplanes 5 Civilian 26.84% Jet Airplanes 6 Helicopters 1 Glider Airplanes 2 Military Aircraft 8 * for 12-month period ending 31 December 2017 Source: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCEF Westover Airport runway system is long enough to accommodate all types of aircraft. Its primary runway 5-23 is 11,597 feet long by 300 feet wide and includes two Instrument Landing Systems. The Airport’s second runway, 15- 33, is 7,081 feet long by 150 feet wide. These runways provide pilots with a safe approach during variable wind and weather. The Westover Metropolitan Development Corporation (WMDC) is the Civil Airport Authority holds the FAA Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate. The WMDC organized in 1974 to facilitate the conversion of former Military property at Westover to constructive Civilian re-use. It is a public non-profit corporation governed by an autonomous nine member Board of Directors.

RTP Appendix

Over the past forty years, WMDC has successfully developed three industrial Air Parks in both the Town of Ludlow (Air Park East) and the City of Chicopee (Air Parks/North & West). The three Air Parks have more than 55 industries employing over 4,000 skilled workers. A new Air Park consisting of 88 acres of land owned by WMDC and located south of the airport is currently in the early stages of site development. The Westover Airport facilities include a Passenger Terminal with adjacent parking lots for 260 vehicles with plenty of room for expansion. On the airfield side of the terminal building there is a reinforced concrete apron over five acres in size to handle aircraft parking for arrivals and departures. In addition, there are 13 large aircraft hangars, ranging in size from 28,600 to 31,500 square feet with 28 foot high doors to accommodate based aircraft and transients. The WMDC has proactively initiated efforts to protect the air space around Westover through participation in a FAA Part 150 Noise Study Program. A Noise Exposure map has identified the properties most impacted by aircraft noise and the program gives those eligible property owners the option to participate in the voluntary acquisition of their property. A total of 62 parcels and over 223 acres have been acquired through 2017. The funding of the program is provided by the FAA, MassDOT Aeronautics Division and a local matching share from WMDC. WMDC plans to continue the Noise Program into the future, which may have a sound insulation component. For more information on the airport please visit their website at http://www.westoverairport.com/ 2. Private Airports a) Northampton Airport The Northampton Airport, operating under the names of both Paradise City Aviation and Pioneer Valley Balloons in the past, is privately owned and operated. In August 2004, a local corporation, Seven Bravo Two, LLC purchased the assets of the airport. Along with this purchase, a new flight school/fixed-based operator office was established at the airport know as Northampton Aeronautics, Inc. The airport has been running since the early 1920’s and became an official airport on April 1, 1929. It is classified as a Basic Utility II airport that serves general aviation uses, both business and recreational. Located in the City of Northampton, the airport covers 55 acres, has one asphalt runway 3,365 feet long and 50 feet wide with variable high intensity, pilot operated runway lighting. Northampton Airport has an estimated 85 flights per day and estimated 60 based aircraft. The runway underwent a $1.2 million reconstruction in 2000. In spring of the 2010 the

RTP Appendix

ramp in front of the maintenance hangar was expanded allowing for more operating space. A new hangar was built in 2010. Northampton Airport offers 24 hour self service fueling, and minor and major maintenance service. The airport is closed to aircraft and helicopters with a gross operating weight in excess of 12,500 lbs. Seaplanes can operate on the Connecticut River, which is parallel to the runway. Table 5-19 – Northampton Airport Operational Statistics Aircraft Based on Field 89 Aircraft Operations: Average Per Day 85* Single Engine Airplanes 80 Local General Aviation 95% Multi Engine Airplanes 8 Transient General Aviation 4% Ultralights 1 Military 1% Air Taxi <1%

* for 12-month period ending 08 August 2016 Source: http://www.airnav.com/airport/7B2 The Northampton Airport normally employs between 15 and 17 employees with as many as 30 during the peak summer months. Besides its large commercial business the airport has chartered flights flying 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to destinations all over the country. It also has an FAA approved part 141 flight school, which is the largest flying school in Western Massachusetts. For more information on the airport please visit their website at http://www.northamptonairport.com/

G. TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS The major interstates and rail lines in the Pioneer Valley Region enable the quick delivery of goods to some of the world’s largest economies of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The regions economics are also influenced by the surrounding mid sized cities such as Albany, Hartford, Worcester, and New Haven. The proximity of these major and middle sized cities allows goods from the Pioneer Valley to be quickly transported to competitive markets. Freight is moved in and out of the Pioneer Valley primarily by truck with rail, air and pipeline carrying the remaining goods. Freight shipments within, from, and to the state of Massachusetts are summarized in Table 5-20 by domestic mode share for 2007, 2012 and 2015. Truck continues to be the dominate mode for transporting freight. For more information on the transportation of goods, please refer to the Massachusetts Freight Plan: https://www.mass.gov/lists/massachusetts-freight-plan-documents

RTP Appendix

Table 5-20 – Shipments Within, From, and To Massachusetts by Domestic Mode Share within From To Trade Mode 2007 2012 2015 2007 2012 2015 2007 2012 2015 Domestic Truck 98.98% 98.98% 99.61% 79.84% 79.58% 91.24% 72.20% 71.39% 74.29% Rail 0.09% 0.09% 0.27% 4.90% 4.31% 0.67% 6.99% 7.06% 0.00% Water 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% 0.23% 0.24% 7.71% Air (include truck-air 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.08% 0.09% 0.31% 0.13% 0.13% 0.42% Multiple modes & mail 0.12% 0.12% 0.11% 2.30% 2.23% 2.49% 2.55% 2.44% 3.77% Pipeline 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 11.65% 12.58% 5.29% 16.99% 17.86% 13.81% Other and unknown 0.81% 0.81% 0.00% 1.18% 1.16% 0.00% 0.91% 0.89% 0.00% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.01% 100.00% Import Truck 70.08% 69.79% 83.43% 95.60% 94.91% 55.45% 70.24% 71.58% 56.11% Rail 0.00% 0.01% 6.17% 0.13% 0.14% 19.72% 23.25% 20.90% 30.32% Water 0.00% 0.00% 6.21% 0.01% 0.01% 22.29% 0.00% 0.00% 5.47% Air (include truck-air 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.07% 0.04% 0.78% Multiple modes & mail 0.10% 0.14% 0.74% 4.00% 4.60% 1.75% 5.25% 6.13% 7.33% Pipeline 29.01% 29.15% 3.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other and unknown 0.81% 0.92% 0.04% 0.26% 0.34% 0.03% 1.19% 1.36% 0.01% Total 100.00% 100.01% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.01% 100.00% Export Truck 66.82% 67.48% 80.28% 80.15% 80.40% 74.51% 68.07% 68.28% 79.62% Rail 0.06% 0.06% 1.43% 5.83% 6.10% 6.00% 2.31% 2.23% 8.51% Water 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.03% 0.04% 10.87% 0.00% 0.00% 6.50% Air (include truck-air 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.22% 1.40% 0.02% 0.02% 0.90% Multiple modes & mail 3.45% 3.51% 2.07% 8.35% 8.76% 7.10% 23.37% 23.45% 4.48% Pipeline 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other and unknown 29.68% 28.95% 15.75% 5.37% 4.49% 0.12% 6.23% 6.02% 0.00% Total 100.01% 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 100.01% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source: FAF Version 3.5 1. Trucking Trucking is the dominant mode for moving freight in the Pioneer Valley. The majority of private carriers in the region are small, short haul carriers handling feeder and distribution traffic. They provide both full truckload and less than truckload deliveries. This mode has the ability to transport goods to the northeastern United States and southeastern parts of Canada by overnight service. These freight companies carry goods for a variety of industries outside Hampden and Hampshire County. The future competitiveness of the industry hinges on the investment in the maintenance and development of interstate, state and local roadways, multimodal facilities and all related infrastructure. Major trucking routes tend to follow Interstate 91 and Interstate 90 in the region. While the interstate routes carry the highest amount of truck traffic, trucks typically provide the final trip between freight terminals, manufacturers or distributors. As a result it is important to maintain efficient freight corridors to assist in the transportation of goods in the Pioneer Valley.

RTP Appendix

a) Critical Freight Corridors The National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) is defined by FHWA to prioritize routes critical to interstate commerce. Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs and CUFCs) provide connectivity to the NHFN for manufacturers and consumers. The Pioneer Valley MPO is responsible for designating public roads for the CRFCs and CUFCs in accordance with the FAST Act. The CRFCs and CUFCs for the Pioneer Valley were designated by the MPO on May 23, 2017 and summarized in Table 5-21.

Table 5-21 – Critical Freight Corridors in the Pioneer Valley MPO

Critical Rural Freight Corridors Route Number Street Name Town Start End Length Route 5 West Street Hatfield Church Avenue Plain Road 2.25 Route 112 Worthington Road Huntington County Road Route 20 2.02 Route 32 Ware Road Palmer Old Warren Road Old Belchertown Road 4.41 Route 202 Daniel Shays Highway Belchertown Allen Road Shutesbury Town Line 8.12 Route 20 Huntington Road/Russell Road Russell/Huntington Route 112 Route 23 6.12 TOTAL 22.92 Critical Urban Freight Corridors Route Number Street Name Town Start Point End Point Length Route 10/202 Southampton Road Westfield Route 202 North Apremont Way I-90 Exit 3 2.93 South Street Ware Benham Avenue Route 9/32 0.62 Damon Road Northampton King Street Interstate I-91 Exit 19/Route 9 0.98 Cottage Street Springfield Roosevelt Avenue Berkshire Avenue 1.53 Garden Street Agawam Bowles Road Route 57 0.55 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield Bay Street Page Boulevard 0.89 Route 5 West Street/North King Street HatfieldNorthampton Elm Street Linseed Road/Church Avenue 0.71 Route 20/32/181 N. Main/Thorndike Streets Palmer Holbrook Street I-90 Exit 8 1.2 Burnett Road Chicopee New Lombard Road I-90 Exit 6 0.29 TOTAL 9.7 b) Rest Stops Drivers of commercial motor vehicles must follow strict hours of service regulations established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). As a result, safe, convenient rest areas are important for long-haul drivers to meet hours of service regulations. MassDOT rest areas in the Pioneer Valley region are show in Figure 5-16. In addition, the Pride Traveler Center is located on Burnett Road in the City of Chicopee off Massachusetts Turnpike Exit 6. Another private truck stop with an associated rest area is located in the City of Westfield off Massachusetts Turnpike Exit 3. PVPC staff has started to document usage of regional truck rest stops. These truck rest stops are described below:

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-16 – MassDOT Rest Areas

Source: MassDOT • Pride Truck Stop in Chicopee—Located directly off of Exit 6 for the Massachusetts Turnpike, this privately operated facility features a gas station, restaurant, and weigh station. There are a total of 157 parking spaces. There is a fee for parking after 3 hours. • Pride Truck Stop in Westfield—Located directly off of Exit 3 for the Massachusetts Turnpike, this lot has a total of 38 parking spaces. Parking is free but signs restrict overnight parking to no more than 3 consecutive nights. • Pride Truck Stop in Springfield—Located directly off of Interstate 91 Exit 9B on Route 20, this privately operated facility features a gas station, convenience store, and weigh station. • Massachusetts Turnpike Service Plazas in Ludlow—A total of 8 truck parking spaces are provided at both Massachusetts Turnpike Service Plaza in Ludlow, MA. Many trucks also park in unmarked spaces along the guardrail in these areas. • I-91 Rest Areas in Northampton—Trucks are allowed to parking in both of these small rest areas but there are no formally marked spaces. No other services are provided. There are also numerous “informal” lots, often large retail parking areas near major highway access points. A summary of average weekday usage of

RTP Appendix

known truck rest areas in the Pioneer Valley is presented below. No trucks were observed to park in the I-91 NB Rest Area in Northampton.

Figure 5-17 – Truck Stop Average Daily Occupancy 2017-2018

2. Rail Five rail carriers provide freight service in the Pioneer Valley Region: CSX Transportation, Pan Am Southern, New England Central, Pioneer Valley Railroad, and MassCentral Railroad. a) CSX Transportation In June 1999 the assets of Conrail were split between CSX and Norfolk Southern. CSX took over Conrail’s operation in Massachusetts and now owns and operates the east-west mainline between Selkirk, New York and Boston. CSX also owns and operates a spur line between Springfield and Ludlow. b) Pan Am Southern Railways In 2008, the Surface Transportation Board approved the merger between Pan Am Railways and Norfolk Southern Railway creating a new joint venture railroad consisting of a portion of Pan Am Railways in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Pan Am Southern Railways now owns the Boston & Maine Railroad (B&M) and its subsidiary Springfield Terminal Railway Company (STRC). B&M is the region's second largest rail carrier, operating a north-south mainline along the Connecticut River from Springfield, to East Deerfield. Pan Am Southern also owns secondary lines that run from

RTP Appendix

Chicopee to Chicopee Falls and from Holyoke to Westover Industrial Airpark in Chicopee. Lying north of the region, but also important to the region's rail system is the B&M east-west mainline. This Pan Am Southern line is now known as the Patriot Corridor and provides Norfolk Southern the opportunity to compete with CSX for New England Traffic. c) New England Central The New England Central Railroad (NECR) is owned by Genesee and Wyoming Railroad Services, Inc. and offers freight service between St. Albans, Vermont and New London, Connecticut via the eastern portion of the Pioneer Valley region. Although the line is not heavily traveled, it has been rehabilitated and operates profitably. In December of 2018 it was announced that NECR would be receiving $10.8 million in Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) funding along with $9.6 million from MassDOT. NECR will be investing $9.6 million as well for a total of $30 million to upgrade the 60 miles of track in Massachusetts to accommodate 286,000 lb. freight car standards. d) Pioneer Valley Railroad The Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) is owned by the Pinsly Company and provides short line service on tracks formerly owned by Conrail. The PVRR took over two lines in 1982, each approximately 15 miles long, connecting Westfield with Holyoke and Northampton. The PVRR can accommodate intermodal transfers at the ends of each route, has 48-state motor carrier authority, and directly connects to both CSX and the B&M railroads. e) MassCentral Railroad MassCentral (Massachusetts Central Railroad Corporation) is an independent firm based in Palmer, Massachusetts. The operation of the railroad is managed by the Finger Lakes Railroad. Like PVRR, MassCentral Railroad provides short line service on a former Conrail line. Since 1979 this railroad has operated the former Ware River secondary line, which runs 24 miles from Palmer, through Ware, to North Barre, Massachusetts. MassCentral connects with CSX in Palmer. After abandonment by Conrail, the line was purchased and rehabilitated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Commonwealth maintains ownership of the majority of the line and leases the tracks to MassCentral. f) Yards Terminals The region's major freight and intermodal yard is located in West Springfield (CSX). CSX is currently making significant infrastructure improvements to the West Springfield facility. Another major freight and switching yard important to the region but located outside the region, is B&M's East Deerfield Yard in

RTP Appendix

Franklin County. Within the Pioneer Valley other smaller freight yards are located in Holyoke, Palmer, and Westfield. g) Services Much of the freight moved in Massachusetts is interstate traffic with either Selkirk, New York (CSX) or Mechanicville, New York (Pan Am Southern) providing connections to long haul lines. In addition to traditional general freight (boxcar) service, all of the region's railroads offer contract rates for volume shipments, consultation services for custom-designed transportation packages, and intermodal freight facilities allowing the transfer of goods from rail to truck and vice versa. The geographic location of the Pioneer Valley at the crossroads of interstate highways (I-90 and I-91) and long-haul rail lines (CSX and B&M) creates a strategic and attractive location for businesses and industry participating in the local or international marketplace. 3. Air Freight Air freight can be sent in two different methods. The first option would be to transport air freight by companies which own and maintain their own all-cargo aircraft fleet, such as AirNet or DB Schekner. The second option is via scheduled passenger aircraft for which the shipper places the cargo with a freight forwarding (pooling) company. The forwarder contracts for blocks of space on commercial airlines for specific routes. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, for identification purposes, air freight services are categorized into whether goods are time sensitive, or less time sensitive; whether they are sent by integrated or nonintegrated providers; or by the major type of cargo carrier, which are identified as being one of the following: express carrier, scheduled, mail or chartered air service providers. Currently there are no major air freight facilities in the region. This lack of this particular regional shipment method does not limit the air freight and package services options for Pioneer Valley residents. Air freight inbound or outbound of the region typically travels through these airports: Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, Logan Airport in Boston, or New York City’s metropolitan airports. Westover Metropolitan Airport in Chicopee, MA seldom has automotive or large machine parts shipments. This limited amount of freight is not tracked or reported by the airport. Bradley International Airport is a medium-hub airport located 15 miles southwest of Springfield, MA, in Windsor Locks, CT. Bradley’s convenient location near Interstate 91, and air cargo facilities, make it the primary choice for the regions shippers. In 2012, more than 122,000 tons of air cargo enplaned or deplaned at Bradley International. Airport choice for air cargo transport is dependent on a number of factors, including destination

RTP Appendix

coverage/schedule factors, tariff structure, logistical and contractual considerations, and access time and distance of individual airports. Therefore, some of the region’s shippers may choose Boston’s Logan airport, or one of New York City’s metropolitan airports for air cargo services. 4. Pipeline There are presently three pipelines serving the Pioneer Valley. One provides natural gas, while the other two provide petroleum products. Pipeline goods are critical to the national and regional economy. These lines provide energy resources for buildings, motor vehicles and power plants to maintain the economy and existing infrastructure. a) Natural Gas Natural gas pipelines, owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc. run along the region’s southern edge. The system's trunk lines originate in the southern Louisiana/Texas/Gulf of Mexico area, travels northeast through the country and region, divides in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, and terminates in Gloucester, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island and Concord, New Hampshire. The main lines cut through ten area communities from Tolland in the west to Holland in the east. These mainlines are 24-inch and 30-inch diameter pipelines. A lateral line also runs north from Southwick to Northampton. This lateral is 8- inch diameter pipeline and becomes a 12-inch diameter pipeline north of Cook Road in Easthampton. This lateral serves Berkshire Gas, Holyoke Gas, Westfield Gas and Bay State Gas Companies. Additionally, two lateral pipelines originate from a compressor station in Agawam, MA: a 10-inch lateral that feeds Bay State Gas in Agawam, MA and an 8-inch lateral that feeds the Berkshire Power plant located in Agawam, MA. There are several natural gas distribution companies in the Pioneer Valley providing service to the region's communities via their own network of pipelines. Identification of these individual pipeline networks is outside the scope of this report. All, however, are fed by the main trunk line. b) Jet Fuel Buckeye Pipeline Company is a common carrier of petroleum products within the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Buckeye Pipeline Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Buckeye Partners, L.P. (NYSE: BPL). Buckeyes’ local office is located in East Hartford, Connecticut, but management control is directed from Brenigsville, Pennsylvania. The Buckeye Pipeline Company system includes a trunk line of approximately 111 miles in length. Of this, 93 miles are 12-inches in diameter, 7 miles are

RTP Appendix

10-inches in diameter, and 11 miles are 8-inches in diameter. There are also a number of spur lines to individual shippers that vary in length and diameter. Petroleum products enter the system at Buckeye Pipeline Company’s New Haven Harbor receiving terminals. The trunk line terminates in Ludlow, Massachusetts. Delivery locations for the line in the Pioneer Valley include Springfield, Ludlow and the Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee. c) Gasoline, Kerosene, Distillates Mobil Pipeline Company, Inc. operates a petroleum product pipeline between Providence, Rhode Island and Springfield, Massachusetts. The pipeline located in the Pioneer Valley is 6-inches in diameter and managed by the company's main headquarters in Houston, Texas.

H. INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE The availability of reliable, high-speed internet service is important to enhance the connectivity and economic vitality of the Pioneer Valley region. The Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) works to make affordable, high- speed internet available to all residents, businesses, schools, and other public entities in Massachusetts. 1. Last Mile Program On April 3, 2017, the Commonwealth and the Executive Office of Housing & Economic Development launched a new grant making program for unserved towns. The Last Mile Infrastructure Grant program provides funding for eligible towns for municipally-owned broadband networks. MBI defines 9 unserved communities in the Pioneer Valley: Blandford, Chesterfield, Cummington, Goshen, Middlefield, Montgomery, Plainfield, Tolland and Worthington. The MBI supports broadband access projects that provide access to minimum speed requirements, demonstrate funding and financing plans, and achieve operating sustainability. 2. Middle Mile Program Middle Mile describes the network infrastructure that connects local networks (last mile) to other service providers. MBI completed construction of an open- access, middle mile fiber-optic network in early 2014. The network consists of approximately 1,200 miles of fiber, connecting 123 communities in western and north central Massachusetts. The system is operated by KCST USA.

RTP Appendix

I. POPULATION 1. Trends While the population in the Pioneer Valley region grew at a modest rate during the 1980s—increasing 3.6% to 602,878 residents—population growth slowed to a trickle in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2000, the region’s population grew by 0.9 percent, reaching 608,479 persons. This is compared to a 5.5 percent increase for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a 13.2 percent increase for the nation as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010, the region’s population grew by 2.4%. Population growth has remained steady since 2010.That the population of the Pioneer Valley region grew at all is a direct result of foreign immigration. Every year of the 1990s the region experienced a net loss in domestic migration (more people moved away to other parts of the country than moved into the region from other parts of the country). Apart from the arrival of 16,025 foreign born persons in the 1990s, the region would have experienced a 1.7 percent loss in population during the decade. Table 5-22 shows the region’s population in the last seven decades. While population grew in the early part of the 2000s to reach 627, 125 in 2009, almost 4,000 people had left by 2010, for an effective growth rate of 2.4%. Massachusetts growth rate for this same period of time was higher at 3.4%. Table 5-23 shows the shift of population from urban areas to suburban and rural areas over the past 50 years. Suburbanization of the region became prominent in the 1950's when the communities adjacent to the urban core cities experienced unprecedented rates of growth. In the 1990's, with ongoing expansion, the highest rates of growth were found at the edges of the traditional suburbs, in the region's rural communities. Belchertown, for example, which has the largest land area of any community in the region had a population increase of 22.6 percent between 1990 and 2000. Suburban growth has continued in the 2000s in towns like Belchertown and East Longmeadow, which grew by 12.9 percent and 11.7 percent respectively. More rural towns such as a Goshen, Montgomery and Tolland have also seen significant population increases (16.6%, 28.2% and 13.3 %). Interestingly, since 2000 urban core communities have seen more modest growth; Springfield and Holyoke have seen increases of 1.06% and 1.03% respectively. Northampton’s population has declined slightly. The population of Amherst, on the other hand, has grown by 11.6%. These trends have continued since 2000 with communities such as Montgomery, Belchertown, Brimfield, Southampton, and Granville experiencing sizable population change between 2000-2017 (up 22.3 percent, 14.9 percent, 11.5 percent, 13 percent, and 9.1 percent respectively).

RTP Appendix

Table 5-22 – Pioneer Valley Region Population Change 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017 Agawam 10,166 15,781 21,717 26,271 27,323 28,144 28,438 28,748 Amherst 10,856 13,781 26,331 33,229 35,228 34,873 37,819 39,880 Belchertown 4,487 5,186 5,936 8,339 10,579 12,968 14,649 14,906 Blandford 597 636 863 1,038 1,187 1,214 1,233 1,259 Brimfield 1,182 1,414 1,907 2,317 3,001 3,339 3,609 3,724 Chester 1,292 1,155 1,025 1,123 1,280 1,306 1,337 1,529 Chesterfield 496 556 704 1,000 1,048 1,201 1,222 1,303 Chicopee 49,211 61,553 66,676 55,112 56,632 54,653 55,298 55,778 Cummington 620 550 562 657 785 1,004 872 860 East Longmeadow 4,881 10,294 13,029 12,905 13,367 14,100 15,720 16,156 Easthampton 10,694 12,326 13,012 15,580 15,537 15,994 16,053 16,051 Goshen 321 385 483 651 830 903 1,054 1,096 Granby 1,816 4,221 5,473 5,380 5,565 6,132 6,240 6,318 Granville 740 874 1,008 1,204 1,403 1,521 1,566 1,660 Hadley 2,639 3,099 3,750 4,125 4,231 4,793 5,250 5,301 Hampden 1,322 2,345 4,572 4,745 4,709 5,171 5,139 5,193 Hatfield 2,179 2,350 2,825 3,045 3,184 3,249 3,279 3,305 Holland 377 561 931 1,589 2,185 2,407 2,481 2,510 Holyoke 54,661 52,689 50,112 44,678 43,704 39,838 39,880 40,362 Huntington 1,256 1,392 1,593 1,804 1,987 2,192 2,180 1,977 Longmeadow 6,508 10,565 15,630 16,301 15,467 15,633 15,784 15,876 Ludlow 8,660 13,805 17,580 18,150 18,820 21,209 21,103 21,331 Middlefield 295 315 288 385 392 580 521 464 Monson 6,125 6,712 7,355 7,315 7,776 8,359 8,560 8,803 Montgomery 157 333 446 637 759 656 838 802 Northampton 29,603 30,058 29,664 29,286 29,289 28,978 28,549 28,548 Palmer 9,533 10,358 11,680 11,389 12,054 12,497 12,140 12,237 Pelham 579 805 937 1,112 1,373 1,403 1,321 1,277 Plainfield 228 237 287 425 571 576 648 668 Russell 1,298 1,366 1,382 1,570 1,594 1,655 1,775 1,330 South Hadley 10,145 14,956 17,033 16,399 16,685 17,196 17,514 17,737 Southampton 1,387 2,192 3,069 4,137 4,478 5,387 5,792 6,090 Southwick 2,855 5,139 6,330 7,382 7,667 8,835 9,502 9,711 Springfield 162,399 174,463 163,905 152,319 156,983 152,082 153,060 154,613 Tolland 107 101 172 235 289 428 485 666 Wales 497 659 852 1,177 1,566 1,737 1,838 2,009 Ware 7,517 7,517 8,187 8,953 9,808 9,708 9,872 9,863 West Springfield 20,438 24,924 28,461 27,042 27,537 27,899 28,391 28,671 Westfield 20,962 26,302 31,433 36,465 38,372 40,072 41,094 41,667 Westhampton 452 583 793 1,137 1,327 1,468 1,607 1,819 Wilbraham 4,003 7,387 11,984 12,053 12,635 13,473 14,219 14,553 Williamsburg 2,056 2,186 2,342 2,237 2,515 2,427 2,482 2,481 Worthington 462 597 712 932 1,156 1,219 1,156 1,253 Pioneer Valley 456,059 532,708 583,031 581,830 602,878 608,479 621,570 630,385 Massachusetts 4,691,000 5,149,000 5,689,170 5,737,037 6,016,425 6,349,097 6,547,629 6,789,319 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

RTP Appendix

Table 5-23 – Rate of Population Change by Community 1950 to 1960 1960 to 1970 1970 to 1980 1980 to 1990 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2017 Agawam 55.2% 37.6% 21.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.1% 1.1% Amherst 26.9% 91.1% 26.2% 6.0% (1.0%) 14.4% 5.4% Belchertown 15.6% 14.5% 40.5% 26.9% 22.6% 14.9% 1.8% Blandford 6.5% 35.7% 20.3% 14.4% 2.3% 3.7% 2.1% Brimfield 19.6% 34.9% 21.5% 29.5% 11.3% 11.5% 3.2% Chester (10.6%) (11.3%) 9.6% 14.0% 2.0% 17.1% 14.4% Chesterfield 12.1% 26.6% 42.0% 4.8% 14.6% 8.5% 6.6% Chicopee 25.1% 8.3% (17.3%) 2.8% (3.5%) 2.1% 0.9% Cummington (11.3%) 2.2% 16.9% 19.5% 27.9% (14.3%) (1.4%) East Longmeadow 110.9% 26.6% (1.0%) 3.6% 5.5% 14.6% 2.8% Easthampton 15.3% 5.6% 19.7% (0.3%) 2.9% 0.4% (0.0%) Goshen 19.9% 25.5% 34.8% 27.5% 8.8% 21.4% 4.0% Granby 132.4% 29.7% (1.7%) 3.4% 10.2% 3.0% 1.3% Granville 18.1% 15.3% 19.4% 16.5% 8.4% 9.1% 6.0% Hadley 17.4% 21.0% 10.0% 2.6% 13.3% 10.6% 1.0% Hampden 77.4% 95.0% 3.8% (0.8%) 9.8% 0.4% 1.1% Hatfield 7.8% 20.2% 7.8% 4.6% 2.0% 1.7% 0.8% Holland 48.8% 66.0% 70.7% 37.5% 10.2% 4.3% 1.2% Holyoke (3.6%) (4.9%) (10.8%) (2.2%) (8.8%) 1.3% 1.2% Huntington 10.8% 14.4% 13.2% 10.1% 10.3% (9.8%) (9.3%) Longmeadow 62.3% 47.9% 4.3% (5.1%) 1.1% 1.6% 0.6% Ludlow 59.4% 27.3% 3.2% 3.7% 12.7% 0.6% 1.1% Middlefield 6.8% (8.6%) 33.7% 1.8% 48.0% (20.0%) (10.9%) Monson 9.6% 9.6% (0.5%) 6.3% 7.5% 5.3% 2.8% Montgomery 112.1% 33.9% 42.8% 19.2% (13.6%) 22.3% (4.3%) Northampton 1.5% (1.3%) (1.3%) 0.0% (1.1%) (1.5%) (0.0%) Palmer 8.7% 12.8% (2.5%) 5.8% 3.7% (2.1%) 0.8% Pelham 39.0% 16.4% 18.7% 23.5% 2.2% (9.0%) (3.3%) Plainfield 3.9% 21.1% 48.1% 34.4% 0.9% 16.0% 3.1% Russell 5.2% 1.2% 13.6% 1.5% 3.8% (19.6%) (25.1%) South Hadley 47.4% 13.9% (3.7%) 1.7% 3.1% 3.1% 1.3% Southampton 58.0% 40.0% 34.8% 8.2% 20.3% 13.0% 5.1% Southwick 80.0% 23.2% 16.6% 3.9% 15.2% 9.9% 2.2% Springfield 7.4% (6.1%) (7.1%) 3.1% (3.1%) 1.7% 1.0% Tolland (5.6%) 70.3% 36.6% 23.0% 48.1% 55.6% 37.3% Wales 32.6% 29.3% 38.1% 33.1% 10.9% 15.7% 9.3% Ware 0.0% 8.9% 9.4% 9.5% (1.0%) 1.6% (0.1%) West Springfield 21.9% 14.2% (5.0%) 1.8% 1.3% 2.8% 1.0% Westfield 25.5% 19.5% 16.0% 5.2% 4.4% 4.0% 1.4% Westhampton 29.0% 36.0% 43.4% 16.7% 10.6% 23.9% 13.2% Wilbraham 84.5% 62.2% 0.6% 4.8% 6.6% 8.0% 2.3% Williamsburg 6.3% 7.1% (4.5%) 12.4% (3.5%) 2.2% (0.0%) Worthington 29.2% 19.3% 30.9% 24.0% 5.4% 2.8% 8.4% Pioneer Valley Region 16.8% 9.4% (0.2%) 3.6% 0.9% 3.6% 1.4% Massachusetts 9.8% 10.5% 0.8% 4.9% 5.5% 6.9% 3.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

RTP Appendix

2. Ethnic and Racial Diversity The Pioneer Valley region’s ethnic and racial diversity continues to grow. Continuing an established trend, the region’s Hispanic and Latino population grew by 62.5% between 2000 and 2017, a rate of growth that was significant, though slightly lower than that of the state and slightly higher than the national rate. While the rate of growth in the Hispanic and Latino population has been slightly slower than that of the state, at approximately 19.2% of the total population, the Hispanic and Latino population is actually slightly higher than that of the nation. In this sense, the Pioneer Valley region looks less like the rest of the state as a whole and more like nation-wide demographics. While the proportion of people who identify as White (of any ethnicity) in the Pioneer Valley region is now just over 80%, slightly higher than that of Massachusetts as a whole, the breakdown of people who identified as races other than White were varied somewhat. The Pioneer Valley region was nearly identical to the state in the proportion of people who identify as African Americans (7.25% vs. 7.4%), Native Americans or Pacific Islander (0.2%), about 3% lower in the proportion of people who identify as an Asian race (3.0%) and .3% higher in the proportion of people who consider themselves a race other than the main five classifications recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau (4.4% of the region’s population identify this way). The region's populations who identify as other than white and non-Hispanic continue to be concentrated in either the urban core area or its surrounding communities. With the region's population increase attributed primarily to growth in minority groups, it can be inferred that the bulk of new residents are located in or around the Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke urbanized area. Given that the core cities diminished in population, this implies a significant out- migration of white people from the urban core. In addition, the average annual income for persons of color is, generally, less than that for white persons. Combined, these factors indicate that the region's urban area may experience an increase in demand for transit service. 3. Age Reflecting a national trend, the Pioneer Valley region’s population is aging. In 1990, the region’s median age was 32.8, had risen to 35.9 in 2000, and reached 38 in 2017. This trend is projected to continue for the next several decades because fertility rates are low and baby boomers are becoming seniors. Figure 5-18 shows the actual 2015 population and the projected 2035 population by age group. All three age groups over age 60 show increases in population between 2015 and 2035.

RTP Appendix

Decreases in the size of the region’s young adult population are also expected to continue. Figure 5-19 contrasts the change in the elder population with that of the 25 to 40 year old population. Figure 5-18 – Projected Regional Population by Age Group

Figure 5-19 – Projected Percent of the Population in select Age Groups

RTP Appendix

J. HOUSING 1. Household Growth Population growth of 2.4 percent between 2000 and 2010 also resulted in an increase in the number of households in the Pioneer Valley. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of households increased from 231,430 to 238, 629, a 3.1 percent rise. Households are defined as persons who occupy a housing unit in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and they have direct access to the unit from outside of the building or through a common hall. Between 2000 and 2010, Montgomery and Westhampton had the largest percentage increase in households (28.4 percent and15.6 percent respectively), while Holyoke and Northampton experienced more modest increases of 2.4 percent and 1.2 percent. Springfield experienced the greatest decrease during this time of .7 percent. . (See Table 5-24). 2. Size While the number of households has declined and the population has grown, the average size of households in the region has remained relatively stable between 2000 and 2010 (See Table 5-25). Household size has been decreasing throughout the nation over the past forty years. In 1970, 47 percent of households had one or two people, by 2000 this number increased to 60.1 percent of all households. Large households (5 or more people) decreased from 20.1 percent of all households in 1970 to 7.6 percent of all households in 2017. The trend toward more and smaller households (particularly single person households), and increased development in the region's rural areas, indicates increases in the total number of commuters as well as those inclined to commute alone, the number of vehicles, and the number of vehicle miles traveled. Table 5-26 shows the number of households in each community by type (family, non-family) and person size. Another important factor in housing size is the number of dwelling units per household. The communities of the region represent a wide range of situations. In the urban areas, such as Springfield and Holyoke, there is a high density of multi-family dwellings, while some rural and suburban communities are almost exclusively single family homes. Of the total housing units in the region, 156,753, or 61%, are single family and 93,606, or 37.7% are multi-family. The communities of Amherst and Northampton are an exception to the pattern described above. These communities have high college student populations which results in a disproportionate concentration of multi-family homes.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-24 – Total Households, 1980-2017 Total Households Percent Change 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 1990 2000 2010 2017 2000 2010 2017 Agawam 10,432 11,271 11,543 11,750 8.0% 2.4% 1.8% Amherst 8,477 9,150 9,105 9,382 7.9% (0.5%) 3.0% Belchertown 3,825 4,904 5,442 5,558 28.2% 11.0% 2.1% Blandford 424 460 457 541 8.5% (0.7%) 18.4% Brimfield 1,078 1,252 1,323 1,465 16.1% 5.7% 10.7% Chester 464 490 538 585 5.6% 9.8% 8.7% Chesterfield 360 446 453 504 23.9% 1.6% 11.3% Chicopee 22,625 23,115 22,863 22,987 2.2% (1.1%) 0.5% Cummington 317 406 414 430 28.1% 2.0% 3.9% East Longmeadow 4,670 5,236 5,677 5,978 12.1% 8.4% 5.3% Easthampton 6,170 6,859 7,233 7,205 11.2% 5.5% (0.4%) Goshen 301 368 428 448 22.3% 16.3% 4.7% Granby 1,939 2,259 2,578 2,475 16.5% 14.1% (4.0%) Granville 483 542 578 608 12.2% 6.6% 5.2% Hadley 1,633 1,895 1,977 2,316 16.0% 4.3% 17.1% Hampden 1,620 1,823 1,937 1,976 12.5% 6.3% 2.0% Hatfield 1,266 1,378 1,531 1,557 8.8% 11.1% 1.7% Holland 791 900 1,059 951 13.8% 17.7% (10.2%) Holyoke 15,850 15,000 16,108 15,403 (5.4%) 7.4% (4.4%) Huntington 703 813 870 789 15.6% 7.0% (9.3%) Longmeadow 5,360 5,738 5,590 5,694 7.1% (2.6%) 1.9% Ludlow 6,957 7,666 7,753 8,086 10.2% 1.1% 4.3% Middlefield 146 219 176 216 50.0% (19.6%) 22.7% Monson 2,642 3,099 3,123 3,473 17.3% 0.8% 11.2% Montgomery 250 257 291 322 2.8% 13.2% 10.7% Northampton 11,164 11,863 11,783 11,406 6.3% (0.7%) (3.2%) Palmer 4,781 5,090 5,189 4,936 6.5% 1.9% (4.9%) Pelham 492 537 542 524 9.1% 0.9% (3.3%) Plainfield 209 247 259 283 18.2% 4.9% 9.3% Russell 557 598 636 531 7.4% 6.4% (16.5%) South Hadley 5,884 6,584 6,983 6,727 11.9% 6.1% (3.7%) Southampton 1,543 1,966 2,226 2,422 27.4% 13.2% 8.8% Southwick 2,713 3,312 3,737 3,750 22.1% 12.8% 0.3% Springfield 57,769 57,178 56,229 56,331 (1.0%) (1.7%) 0.2% Tolland 108 183 198 277 69.4% 8.2% 39.9% Wales 550 660 774 815 20.0% 17.3% 5.3% Ware 3,836 4,020 4,352 4,192 4.8% 8.3% (3.7%) West Springfield 11,485 11,866 11,761 11,971 3.3% (0.9%) 1.8% Westfield 13,823 14,798 15,270 15,276 7.1% 3.2% 0.0% Westhampton 442 539 608 666 21.9% 12.8% 9.5% Wilbraham 4,474 4,941 5,091 5,225 10.4% 3.0% 2.6% Williamsburg 933 1,031 1,124 1,108 10.5% 9.0% (1.4%) Worthington 412 471 528 574 14.3% 12.1% 8.7% Pioneer Valley Region 219,958 231,430 236,337 237,713 5.2% 2.1% 0.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

RTP Appendix

Table 5-25 – Household Size, 1960 to 2017 Number of Households Year 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 or more Total 1960 21,425 42,454 31,047 28,406 18,306 15,232 156,870 13.7% 27.1% 19.8% 18.1% 11.7% 9.7% 1970 32,998 50,799 31,071 27,378 17,644 18,092 177,982 18.5% 28.5% 17.5% 15.4% 9.9% 10.2% 1980 47,036 62,661 35,616 31,060 15,514 10,393 202,280 23.3% 31.0% 17.6% 15.4% 7.7% 5.1% 1990 55,863 68,760 39,324 34,276 14,429 7,306 219,958 25.4% 31.3% 17.9% 15.6% 6.6% 3.3% 2000 65,759 73,290 37,960 32,613 14,334 7,474 231,430 28.4% 31.7% 16.4% 14.1% 6.2% 3.2% 2010 71,605 76,223 36,954 32,743 12,600 6,212 236,337 30.3% 32.3% 15.6% 13.9% 5.3% 2.6% 2017 69,686 78,660 39,604 31,661 11,713 6,389 237,713 29.3% 33.1% 16.7% 13.3% 4.9% 2.7%

RTP Appendix

Table 5-26 – Number of Households by Type and Size, 2017 Family Households by Size Nonfamily Households by Size Total All 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 or more Total 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 or more Total Households People People Agawam 3,278 1,858 1,477 426 101 94 7,234 3,720 707 43 27 0 19 0 4,516 11,750 Amherst 2,042 986 1,008 383 77 57 4,553 2,599 890 549 706 50 17 18 4,829 9,382 Belchertown 1,768 840 1,115 364 78 0 4,165 1,022 329 14 28 0 0 0 1,393 5,558 Blandford 204 114 58 18 0 0 394 122 25 0 0 0 0 0 147 541 Brimfield 467 326 145 44 26 32 1,040 332 93 0 0 0 0 0 425 1,465 Chester 175 111 88 39 7 3 423 119 30 13 0 0 0 0 162 585 Chesterfield 144 82 92 6 6 9 339 145 20 0 0 0 0 0 165 504 Chicopee 6,247 3,503 2,784 959 344 135 13,972 7,442 1,468 66 34 5 0 0 9,015 22,987 Cummington 152 43 28 16 0 0 239 157 28 6 0 0 0 0 191 430 East Longmeadow 1,703 829 964 442 144 27 4,109 1,580 289 0 0 0 0 0 1,869 5,978 Easthampton 2,073 1,009 650 150 147 0 4,029 2,383 684 55 40 0 14 0 3,176 7,205 Goshen 171 51 74 17 0 7 320 102 26 0 0 0 0 0 128 448 Granby 707 568 302 107 28 47 1,759 617 53 34 12 0 0 0 716 2,475 Granville 220 130 93 31 19 3 496 84 25 3 0 0 0 0 112 608 Hadley 814 380 149 47 0 32 1,422 691 189 0 14 0 0 0 894 2,316 Hampden 649 445 292 64 43 8 1,501 400 68 7 0 0 0 0 475 1,976 Hatfield 517 287 107 44 0 0 955 481 106 0 5 10 0 0 602 1,557 Holland 366 152 129 83 12 0 742 183 26 0 0 0 0 0 209 951 Holyoke 3,453 2,572 2,004 733 324 231 9,317 4,865 1,008 186 18 0 9 0 6,086 15,403 Huntington 247 146 82 38 10 13 536 193 56 4 0 0 0 0 253 789 Longmeadow 1,900 1,167 1,031 304 81 0 4,483 1,083 128 0 0 0 0 0 1,211 5,694 Ludlow 2,472 1,578 1,109 411 119 42 5,731 2,009 281 29 36 0 0 0 2,355 8,086 Middlefield 110 22 19 8 0 0 159 54 3 0 0 0 0 0 57 216 Monson 1,168 515 463 182 14 17 2,359 797 248 47 0 22 0 0 1,114 3,473 Montgomery 118 65 41 12 4 1 241 66 15 0 0 0 0 0 81 322 Northampton 2,609 1,530 1,225 384 14 34 5,796 4,224 1,046 236 95 9 0 0 5,610 11,406 Palmer 1,102 847 587 299 72 0 2,907 1,447 499 83 0 0 0 0 2,029 4,936 Pelham 192 63 78 22 9 0 364 129 24 7 0 0 0 0 160 524 Plainfield 114 25 23 21 6 0 189 71 17 6 0 0 0 0 94 283 Russell 197 77 80 24 3 3 384 123 21 3 0 0 0 0 147 531 South Hadley 2,110 988 745 222 77 0 4,142 2,027 501 57 0 0 0 0 2,585 6,727 Southampton 815 318 460 90 17 28 1,728 505 189 0 0 0 0 0 694 2,422 Southwick 1,295 644 475 247 25 50 2,736 841 173 0 0 0 0 0 1,014 3,750 Springfield 13,974 9,266 7,183 3,489 1,462 904 36,278 16,983 2,517 286 225 22 0 20 20,053 56,331 Tolland 119 31 28 13 4 0 195 62 11 2 0 7 0 0 82 277 Wales 289 101 97 35 36 0 558 228 29 0 0 0 0 0 257 815 Ware 1,104 855 444 143 70 36 2,652 1,343 184 13 0 0 0 0 1,540 4,192 West Springfield 2,780 1,506 1,338 753 239 121 6,737 4,537 638 59 0 0 0 0 5,234 11,971 Westfield 4,567 2,306 2,078 596 293 144 9,984 4,263 750 151 76 17 0 35 5,292 15,276 Westhampton 277 113 101 34 22 0 547 79 35 5 0 0 0 0 119 666 Wilbraham 1,657 927 890 230 186 46 3,936 1,060 187 42 0 0 0 0 1,289 5,225 Williamsburg 381 159 155 23 0 0 718 340 34 6 10 0 0 0 390 1,108 Worthington 185 57 44 18 4 10 318 178 78 0 0 0 0 0 256 574 Pioneer Valley Region 64,932 37,592 30,335 11,571 4,123 2,134 150,687 69,686 13,728 2,012 1,326 142 59 73 87,026 237,713 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates RTP Appendix

K. EMPLOYMENT 1. Type The region's economic base continues to demonstrate the transition from the manufacturing to the service industry. Manufacturing once dominated the Valley's economy, employing over 28 percent of the work force in 1980. By 1990, nearly one-quarter of those manufacturing jobs had been lost or relocated out of the Region. This trend continued into the 1990s as the number of manufacturing jobs decreased by 25.3 percent between 1990 and 2000. By 2017, manufacturing accounted for only 7.6 percent of jobs in the region. At the same time service employment has increased. Today, services employ more of the region's work force than manufacturing, with services comprising more than half of all jobs in 2017. Table 5-27 shows employment in the region's communities by employment sector, total payroll, and average wage for 2017. At $54,340, Springfield has one of the highest average annual wages within the region because it is home to many of the region’s largest and most successful employers. Several important implications for transportation can be derived from this information. First, the shift from primarily manufacturing jobs to high paying service jobs means that during that period the average annual income for many of the region's residents was increasing. This, in turn, has improved residential flexibility and choice for residents. Since the cost of housing in urban areas is typically less than that for suburbs or outlying areas, residents with increased incomes can afford to live outside the urban core and commute. This was clearly shown in Census 2000 data as population decreases in the urban core are accompanied by increases in outlying suburbs and rural towns. The trend is beginning to reverse, as higher gasoline prices and the 2008-09 recession encouraged workers to live closer to employment centers by the 2010 Census. Finally, increases in the number of two-income households and the number of women in the work force indicate increases in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Often the workers in a two income household are unable to share a commute due to the distance or time inconveniences. Therefore, the number of vehicles and miles traveled increases. In addition to more trips to and from work, the number of incidental or side trips also increases (particularly during rush hour) as children are taken to and from day care facilities and errands are combined with the commute. Due to the need to access child care, retail and business facilities during the workday, the single occupant vehicle remains the primary choice for transportation of the region's work force. Employer-based childcare facilities could enhance the opportunity for many people to use an alternative to the single occupant RTP Appendix

vehicle. Likewise, the provision of retail and business establishments near employment centers (such as drug stores, banks, restaurants) could reduce the need for all employees to have cars in order to take care of personal business during the work day. 2. Growth As Figure 5-20 illustrates, the early 1990s saw sharp decreases in employment levels across the Pioneer Valley region, largely the result of economic recession. Consequently, people began leaving the region, provoking a steep drop in the size of the region’s labor force between 1990 and 1996. This had potential to be disastrous for growth in the region as employers grew frustrated at the lack of qualified workers to fill open positions. However, declines in employment and labor force size leveled off in the second half of the 1990s and, beginning in 2000, both measures appeared to be sharply increasing. About a year after the March 2001 return of recession, employment levels in the Pioneer Valley began to fall again, and then more extremely during the 2008-2009 recession. Neither employment levels nor the labor force have recovered fully from the recession, though they do seem to be headed in the right direction now. While the unemployment rate has dropped since 2009, it remains elevated close to 7%, The recession of 2008-09 resulted in a net decrease in employment between 2000 and 2010. Sectors that managed to grow included state and local government (8.9 percent), education (31.8 percent) and health care (29 percent). Projected growth will likely take place in the health care, education and construction industries as the economy recovers (BLS, Employment Projections, Table 2. Employment by Major Industry Sector, 2012 - national) [Manufacturing employment will most likely continue to decrease, though perhaps not as quickly as it has in the last two decades.]

RTP Appendix

Table 5-27 – Pioneer Valley Regional Employment by Industrial Sector, 2017

Manage- Real Prof- Adminis- Health Arts, Accomo- Agriculture, Whole- Transport ment of Edu- Public Total Average Average Con- Manufact- Retail Inform- Finance & Estate and essional & trative & Care and Entertain- dation & Other Establish- Forestry, & Utilities sale & Ware- Companies cational Adminis- Employ- Annual Weekly struction uring Trade ation Insurance Rental/ Technical Waste Social ment, & Food Services ments Fishing Trade housing and Services tration ment Wage Wage Leasing Services Services Assistance Recreation Services Enterprises

Agawam 287 679 2,164 766 925 250 41 245 98 633 47 663 1,600 1,402 834 376 12,166 897 $46,748 $899 Amherst 56 174 42 41 895 136 199 155 254 313 212 10,254 1,835 547 1,540 436 386 17,508 924 $51,740 $995 Belchertown 109 63 188 253 520 15 56 28 81 88 417 252 74 205 2,819 326 $38,532 $741 Blandford 9 11 199 23 $17,940 $345 Brimfield 66 6 39 46 11 3 32 28 23 16 526 90 $41,132 $791 Chester 10 111 21 $28,340 $545 Chesterfield 44 24 155 21 $31,200 $600 Chicopee 1,550 2,999 1,170 2,655 749 382 366 280 230 141 567 2,047 2,715 201 2,047 571 1,171 19,991 1,691 $45,240 $870 Cummingt on 9 13 285 34 $36,712 $706 East Longmeadow 297 1,782 259 803 184 120 225 109 367 27 203 662 1,715 222 570 353 8,034 640 $47,528 $914 Easthampton 406 652 49 380 81 20 213 43 149 115 671 714 42 555 248 4,587 495 $41,756 $803 Go sh en 18 38 173 33 $31,460 $605 Gran by 112 56 90 7 15 36 58 213 84 7 98 24 890 142 $41,236 $793 Granville 20 8 14 5 159 34 $29,380 $565 Hadley 210 176 47 104 1,878 33 81 317 35 307 119 1,108 467 117 939 180 287 6,498 376 $39,000 $750 Hampden 83 22 2 56 16 16 50 110 154 166 17 1,059 147 $39,364 $757 Hatfield 27 89 65 1,069 104 69 69 4 16 130 206 13 80 23 2,138 131 $47,112 $906 Holland 8 16 8 219 32 $21,320 $410 Holyoke 772 552 1,740 470 3,523 147 65 498 334 329 274 522 2,488 7,552 249 1,509 529 775 22,329 2,167 $45,292 $871 Huntington 13 23 94 31 396 49 $37,492 $721 Longmeadow 112 32 389 36 136 39 85 256 1,101 1,099 183 335 83 3,997 401 $43,316 $833 Ludlow 755 616 209 614 144 14 144 52 196 487 850 64 619 180 6,885 560 $46,228 $889 Middlefield 50 9 $25,584 $492 Monson 148 174 45 109 95 27 62 131 95 47 1,435 205 $43,056 $828 Montgomery 14 43 11 $24,492 $471 Northampton 639 774 675 2,149 146 357 405 75 750 298 756 2,778 6,067 285 1,827 752 1,045 19,873 1,293 $52,052 $1,001 Palmer 382 629 111 541 129 110 56 44 228 127 164 428 1,045 42 397 124 188 4,749 463 $46,384 $892 Pelham 12 20 17 148 32 $30,732 $591 Plainfield 6 57 19 $20,072 $386 Russell 13 7 143 37 $41,964 $807 Sout h Hadley 12 353 177 142 345 105 33 104 28 85 199 1,714 531 29 428 166 159 4,661 401 $44,616 $858 Southampton 171 25 295 15 10 12 47 15 74 115 32 926 130 $38,532 $741 Southwick 110 139 414 53 428 239 18 54 32 6 198 101 325 113 2,801 291 $38,376 $738 Springfield 474 1,509 3,760 1,490 5,481 3,387 1,049 5,275 848 1,993 1,538 3,627 8,179 30,848 693 4,860 3,017 3,437 81,462 7,519 $54,340 $1,045 Tolland* 42 7 $32,916 $633 Wales 9 14 167 46 $31,980 $615 Ware 118 276 70 777 59 18 36 75 420 9 268 60 2,699 283 $43,576 $838 West Springfield 27 919 1,273 726 3,477 748 319 474 396 549 1,419 2,962 346 1,951 596 17,652 1,382 $42,744 $822 Westfield 13 984 2,693 578 2,006 1,810 264 207 246 764 373 2,569 2,861 242 1,141 613 1,090 18,668 1,192 $48,724 $937 Westhampton 24 20 14 13 332 46 $41,288 $794 Wilbraham 163 383 76 777 31 116 26 229 88 763 762 91 391 116 5,586 403 $38,740 $745 Williamsburg 103 49 92 20 3 31 18 18 78 19 578 87 $32,812 $631 Worthington 72 180 33 $31,408 $604

Pioneer Valley Region 428 1,560 10,981 20,802 8,412 29,120 9,141 3,261 9,088 2,983 7,571 2,452 10,378 34,975 65,671 4,885 21,474 8,783 8,743 273,376 23,123 $47,879 $921 Source: Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance, 2017 Note: Blanks indicate that the data is suppressed to preserve confidentiality.

RTP Appendix

Figure 5-20 – Pioneer Valley Region Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment

320,000 10.0%

9.0% 310,000 8.0% 300,000 7.0%

6.0% 290,000

Persons 5.0%

280,000 Percent Unemployment 4.0%

270,000 3.0% 2.0% 260,000 1.0% 250,000 0.0%

Year

Labor Force Employment Unemployment Rate

Source: Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

3. Median Household Income The recession negatively affected wages also; median household incomes decreased between 2000 and 2010 by an average of 12.9% throughout the Pioneer Valley region. Hampden County suffered a more significant drop than Hampshire County, a trend that appears to be continuing between 2010 and 2017.

RTP Appendix

Though median household income has declined, per capita income (see Figure 5- 21) in the Pioneer Valley region, except for slight losses between 1989 and 1993, had been increasing steadily since 1980. Despite two recessions in the 2000s, per capita wages continue to increase. Overall, declining household income coupled with rising average wages and per capita income is likely indicating that there are fewer wage earners per household now than in the past. This conclusion is also supported by our finding of shrinking average household sizes.

Table 5-28 – Median Household Income Median Household Income (2017 Dollars) Percent Change 2000 to 2010 to 2000 2010 2017 2010 2017 Hampden County $56,695 $53,771 $51,726 (5.2%) (3.8%) Hampshire County $65,802 $67,045 $67,989 1.9% 1.4% Pioneer Valley Region* $58,897 $57,030 $55,666 (3.2%) (2.4%) Source: U.S. Census Bureau * Median household income for the region is a weighted average based on the number of households.

Figure 5-21 – Per Capita Income, 1980-2017

$50,000

$45,000

$40,000

$35,000

$30,000 Per Capita Income Per $) Income (2017 Capita

$25,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System (REIS)

RTP Appendix

L. VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND OWNERSHIP Based on information available from 2015, a total of 489,999 vehicles were registered in the Pioneer Valley region. This translates into approximately 0.78 vehicles per person and is a decrease of 4.9 percent from 2000. Most of this decrease can be attributed to significantly fewer registered automobiles. Between 2000 and 2015, automobile registrations dropped by over 23 percent. Automobile registrations appear to have peaked in 2008, at 304,425. Despite record-high gasoline prices between 2008-2012, light trucks and SUVs continue to comprise over one-third of registered vehicles. This decrease in automobile ownership is notable. The decrease in car ownership may be a result of the reduced workforce, and families not needing a second car. Alternatively, car owners may opt to use public transit to reduce transportation expenses, and avoid car maintenance costs altogether. The City of Springfield has the most registered vehicles with 90,493 recorded in 2015. This translates to 18.5 percent of registered vehicles in the region. Outlying communities—including Belchertown, Brimfield, Chesterfield, Goshen, Holland, Plainfield, Tolland and Westhampton—had the largest increase in registered vehicles between 2000 and 2015. However, in the light truck and SUV category, the region’s wealthiest town, Longmeadow, had the largest increase in registrations at 58.1 percent followed closely by East Longmeadow at 57.7%. Tables 5-29 and 5-30 summarize the number of registered motor vehicles in the Pioneer Valley by community and type of vehicle for 2000 and 2015. Table 5-31 highlights the percent change in registrations between 2000 and 2015 by type of vehicle and community.

RTP Appendix

Table 5-29 – Registered Motor Vehicles in the Pioneer Valley – 2000 Light Trucks Heavy Automobiles Trailers Motorcycles Other Total (& S UVs ) Trucks Agawam 16,485 1,611 6,836 659 362 237 27,953 A mhers t 12,378 508 3,294 151 168 242 18,331 Belchertown 6,599 948 3,769 201 261 191 12,650 Blandford 627 128 485 19 36 15 1,369 Brimfield 1,763 322 1,198 94 99 75 3,719 Chester 646 116 576 31 48 19 1,483 Chesterfield 525 95 507 26 34 23 1,253 Chicopee 30,092 2,210 10,480 878 653 460 47,050 Cummington 523 76 367 22 26 31 1,101 East Longmeadow 8,452 806 3,495 258 187 216 14,439 Easthampton 8,944 675 3,851 165 291 191 14,819 Goshen 467 97 352 29 27 14 1,034 Granby 3,189 573 1,999 117 131 98 6,407 Granville 806 160 624 71 56 26 1,840 Hadley 2,768 357 1,435 124 53 76 5,110 Hampden 2,816 455 1,584 123 99 69 5,530 Hatfield 1,984 444 1,120 236 52 70 4,161 Holland 1,249 180 825 22 70 25 2,469 Holyoke 18,562 751 5,438 280 325 290 26,992 Huntington 1,034 165 805 48 58 39 2,212 Longmeadow 9,600 368 2,929 44 103 70 15,205 Ludlow 10,771 1,104 4,984 430 306 182 18,809 Middlefield 236 45 229 11 22 14 578 Monson 4,095 714 2,799 206 217 119 8,520 Montgomery 380 100 345 19 21 13 917 Northampton 15,629 882 5,282 340 335 261 24,541 Palmer 6,751 837 3,485 307 274 168 12,314 Pelham 785 99 359 24 17 24 1,437 Plainfield 319 48 241 10 16 11 683 Russell 822 127 560 24 36 20 1,648 South Hadley 9,050 903 3,605 287 192 147 15,133 Southampton 2,878 542 1,818 114 109 89 5,816 Southwick 4,837 792 3,022 241 196 130 9,721 Springfield 73,874 3,030 20,792 1,767 1,259 1,557 108,803 Tolland 222 40 183 21 20 10 519 Wales 919 154 608 37 65 24 1,865 Ware 4,740 530 2,678 138 220 94 8,737 West Springfield 16,003 1,219 5,951 576 316 232 25,987 Westfield 19,721 2,147 9,515 713 472 403 34,752 Westhampton 702 115 568 32 38 22 1,547 Wilbraham 7,773 843 3,305 239 202 147 13,700 Williamsburg 1,450 189 915 68 37 42 2,876 Worthington 627 124 526 30 24 24 1,415 Pioneer Valley Region 312,093 25,629 123,739 9,232 7,533 6,210 515,445 Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue

RTP Appendix

Table 5-30 – Registered Motor Vehicles in the Pioneer Valley – 2015 Light Trucks Heavy Automobiles Trailers Motorcycles Other Total (& S UVs ) Trucks Agawam 13,182 1,682 9,288 791 639 1,638 27,220 A mhers t 8,825 531 3,985 179 166 792 14,478 Belchertown 6,402 1,186 5,669 281 449 938 14,925 Blandford 455 132 602 42 60 97 1,388 Brimfield 1,544 402 1,487 137 170 354 4,094 Chester 484 130 620 31 67 97 1,429 Chesterfield 483 143 586 28 56 95 1,391 Chicopee 22,975 2,312 15,441 875 1,025 2,161 44,789 Cummington 385 61 381 30 52 79 988 East Longmeadow 7,190 974 5,511 396 334 794 15,199 Easthampton 7,547 807 5,084 188 396 919 14,941 Goshen 431 107 449 72 43 85 1,187 Granby 2,685 677 2,576 185 209 368 6,700 Granville 653 215 756 75 94 103 1,896 Hadley 2,418 476 1,830 156 122 345 5,347 Hampden 2,269 549 2,189 174 182 320 5,683 Hatfield 1,617 398 1,370 311 104 311 4,111 Holland 1,097 258 995 36 125 208 2,719 Holyoke 13,224 722 8,452 300 426 1,151 24,275 Huntington 786 229 963 60 94 167 2,299 Longmeadow 7,342 475 4,632 176 156 700 13,481 Ludlow 8,885 1,436 7,098 706 545 1,030 19,700 Middlefield 156 58 248 15 16 48 541 Monson 3,461 923 3,581 319 363 507 9,154 Montgomery 338 127 423 26 50 65 1,029 Northampton 12,573 907 6,380 358 398 1,232 21,848 Palmer 5,334 967 4,546 420 420 660 12,347 Pelham 639 89 419 22 37 60 1,266 Plainfield 298 53 307 20 20 50 748 Russell 634 180 728 32 76 120 1,770 South Hadley 7,151 990 5,144 345 310 844 14,784 Southampton 2,663 711 2,575 177 225 431 6,782 Southwick 4,185 891 3,836 324 354 617 10,207 Springfield 49,558 2,462 31,078 1,467 1,465 4,463 90,493 Tolland 200 71 250 23 29 37 610 Wales 766 177 780 45 73 120 1,961 Ware 3,662 650 3,620 174 301 499 8,906 West Springfield 12,319 1,257 8,238 835 459 1,217 24,325 Westfield 15,648 2,411 12,821 874 920 2,227 34,901 Westhampton 671 160 776 65 64 147 1,883 Wilbraham 6,674 892 5,104 305 333 848 14,156 Williamsburg 1,225 169 942 80 76 149 2,641 Worthington 503 144 558 29 59 114 1,407 Pioneer Valley Region 239,537 28,191 172,318 11,184 11,562 27,207 489,999 Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue

RTP Appendix

Table 5-31 – Percent Change in Registered Motor Vehicles, 2000-2015 Light Trucks Heavy Automobiles Trailers Motorcycles Other Total (& S UVs ) Trucks Agawam (20.0%) 4.4% 35.9% 20.0% 76.5% 591.1% (2.6%) A mhers t (28.7%) 4.5% 21.0% 18.5% (1.2%) 227.3% (21.0%) Belchertown (3.0%) 25.1% 50.4% 39.8% 72.0% 391.1% 18.0% Blandford (27.4%) 3.1% 24.1% 121.1% 66.7% 546.7% 1.4% Brimfield (12.4%) 24.8% 24.1% 45.7% 71.7% 372.0% 10.1% Chester (25.1%) 12.1% 7.6% 0.0% 39.6% 410.5% (3.6%) Chesterfield (8.0%) 50.5% 15.6% 7.7% 64.7% 313.0% 11.0% Chicopee (23.7%) 4.6% 47.3% (0.3%) 57.0% 369.8% (4.8%) Cummington (26.4%) (19.7%) 3.8% 36.4% 100.0% 154.8% (10.3%) East Longmeadow (14.9%) 20.8% 57.7% 53.5% 78.6% 267.6% 5.3% Easthampton (15.6%) 19.6% 32.0% 13.9% 36.1% 381.2% 0.8% Goshen (7.7%) 10.3% 27.6% 148.3% 59.3% 507.1% 14.8% Granby (15.8%) 18.2% 28.9% 58.1% 59.5% 275.5% 4.6% Granville (19.0%) 34.4% 21.2% 5.6% 67.9% 296.2% 3.0% Hadley (12.6%) 33.3% 27.5% 25.8% 130.2% 353.9% 4.6% Hampden (19.4%) 20.7% 38.2% 41.5% 83.8% 363.8% 2.8% Hatfield (18.5%) (10.4%) 22.3% 31.8% 100.0% 344.3% (1.2%) Holland (12.2%) 43.3% 20.6% 63.6% 78.6% 732.0% 10.1% Holyoke (28.8%) (3.9%) 55.4% 7.1% 31.1% 296.9% (10.1%) Huntington (24.0%) 38.8% 19.6% 25.0% 62.1% 328.2% 3.9% Longmeadow (23.5%) 29.1% 58.1% 300.0% 51.5% 900.0% (11.3%) Ludlow (17.5%) 30.1% 42.4% 64.2% 78.1% 465.9% 4.7% Middlefield (33.9%) 28.9% 8.3% 36.4% (27.3%) 242.9% (6.4%) Monson (15.5%) 29.3% 27.9% 54.9% 67.3% 326.1% 7.4% Montgomery (11.1%) 27.0% 22.6% 36.8% 138.1% 400.0% 12.2% Northampton (19.6%) 2.8% 20.8% 5.3% 18.8% 372.0% (11.0%) Palmer (21.0%) 15.5% 30.4% 36.8% 53.3% 292.9% 0.3% Pelham (18.6%) (10.1%) 16.7% (8.3%) 117.6% 150.0% (11.9%) Plainfield (6.6%) 10.4% 27.4% 100.0% 25.0% 354.5% 9.5% Russell (22.9%) 41.7% 30.0% 33.3% 111.1% 500.0% 7.4% South Hadley (21.0%) 9.6% 42.7% 20.2% 61.5% 474.1% (2.3%) Southampton (7.5%) 31.2% 41.6% 55.3% 106.4% 384.3% 16.6% Southwick (13.5%) 12.5% 26.9% 34.4% 80.6% 374.6% 5.0% Springfield (32.9%) (18.7%) 49.5% (17.0%) 16.4% 186.6% (16.8%) Tolland (9.9%) 77.5% 36.6% 9.5% 45.0% 270.0% 17.5% Wales (16.6%) 14.9% 28.3% 21.6% 12.3% 400.0% 5.1% Ware (22.7%) 22.6% 35.2% 26.1% 36.8% 430.9% 1.9% West Springfield (23.0%) 3.1% 38.4% 45.0% 45.3% 424.6% (6.4%) Westfield (20.7%) 12.3% 34.7% 22.6% 94.9% 452.6% 0.4% Westhampton (4.4%) 39.1% 36.6% 103.1% 68.4% 568.2% 21.7% Wilbraham (14.1%) 5.8% 54.4% 27.6% 64.9% 476.9% 3.3% Williamsburg (15.5%) (10.6%) 3.0% 17.6% 105.4% 254.8% (8.2%) Worthington (19.8%) 16.1% 6.1% (3.3%) 145.8% 375.0% (0.6%) Pioneer Valley Region (23.2%) 10.0% 39.3% 21.1% 53.5% 338.1% (4.9%) Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue

RTP Appendix

100

CONGESTION APPENDIX Understanding where and why traffic congestion is happening is an important step toward reducing it. The Pioneer Valley Congestion Management Process (CMP) works toward identifying the major traffic congested locations within the Pioneer Valley Region. This information is essential in advancing future transportation improvements that will reduce traffic congestion and improve the overall safety and efficiency of our transportation network. 1. Recurring and Non-Recurring Congestion There are two types of congestion: recurring and non-recurring. Recurring congestion can be expected to occur at the same time every weekday as a result of high volumes of commuter traffic traveling on roadways that are at or near their carrying capacity. Non-recurring congestion occurs as a result of an unexpected or non-typical event. Some causes of non-recurring congestion include: vehicular crashes, vehicle breakdowns, roadway construction, inclimate weather, and additional traffic resulting from special events. Previous versions of the Pioneer Valley CMP only included the impacts of recurring congestion. In the past, travel time data that was thought to have been influenced by unexpected events such as roadway improvement projects or vehicle breakdowns was not used. The CMP now incorporates all regional travel time data regardless of the cause of congestion or its perceived severity. A number of new performance measures have also been developed to include the impacts of non-recurring congestion in the CMP. a) Travel Time Data Collection Travel time data collection on the 73 CMP corridors is facilitated by a four- year data collection cycle. A data collection year is scheduled to correspond with an average academic school year beginning in early September and ending in late May. Data collection is restricted by factors to include but not limited to inclement weather, federally observed holidays, and school vacations. The data is collected for each corridor on multiple days and in both directions during the AM and PM peak hours (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM). Drivers are instructed to travel with the flow of traffic but not exceed the posted speed limit for each 2 hour data collection period.

A. REGIONAL ROADWAY CONGESTION SEVERITY The PVPC reviewed each of the ongoing performance measures with respect to their impacts on congestion severity. In previous versions of the CMP,

RTP Appendix

101

congestion severity was defined solely by the total delay and congestion ratio calculated for each CMP corridor. As new performance measures are integrated into the CMP it becomes more difficult to quantify congestion as each corridor has a number of different factors that contribute to congestion. A Regional Congestion Severity formula was developed to assist in our goal of developing an objective driven, performance based congestion management process that incorporates both recurring and non-recurring congestion. This formula is intended to be a dynamic metric that can be modified to incorporate Immediate and Future performance measures as data becomes available. A number of variations of this formula were tested. Each variation attempted to incorporate a variety of performance measures that considered the impacts of a variety of transportation modes on regional congestion. The current version of the formula includes data from six performance measures and integrates the impacts of non-recurring congestion, roadway geometry, and bridge conditions in addition to travel time data.

Inverse Ranking of: Regional Travel Travel Structurally Functionally Congestion Congestion Time Time # High Crash Locations Deficient Obsolete =AVG + + Ratio + 5 X + 3 X + 2 X Severity ( Index Delay ) ( Length of Corridor ) ( Bridge Total ) ( Bridge Total )

1. Methodology Currently, there are a total of 73 CMP corridors with available travel time data. Travel time data for each CMP corridor was ranked based on the inverse value of each of the travel time performance measures. The ranking scheme ranges from 1 to 73 with a value of 73 indicating the highest level of congestion and 1 indicating the lowest level of congestion. A weighted average was performed of the inverse rankings of each performance measures and the average values were again inversely ranked. Priority on corridors that had the same rank was given to the corridor with the higher Travel Time Index. This total was added to the number of high crash locations, structurally deficient bridges and functionally obsolete bridges along each of the CMP corridors. Additional information on the six performance measures currently used in the Regional Congestion Severity formula is provided below. • Travel Time Index is the ratio of the average peak travel time to a free- flow travel time. Index values can be described as an indicator of the length of extra travel time spent during a trip. A travel time index of 1.0

RTP Appendix

102

represents free-flow travel conditions in which there are no delays. Any congestion increases the travel time index. • Travel Time Delay is defined as the difference between the second worst and second best travel time in seconds per mile. • Travel Time Congestion Ratio is defined as the second worst travel time divided by the second best travel time. • High Crash Locations as defined in the Top 100 High Crash Intersections in the Pioneer Valley Region report were plotted along each of the CMP corridors. The number of high crash locations was divided by the distance of the corridor in miles, thus placing a greater emphasis on the concentration of crashes rather than total experience. This figure was then multiplied by a factor of 5 to increase its weight in the regional congestion severity formula. • Structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges occasionally require vehicles to travel alternate routes, create bottlenecks due to lane elimination or lack of exclusive turning lanes, and influence driver confidence resulting in deceleration. Each structurally deficient bridge and functionally obsolete bridge located within a corridor was multiplied by the value of 3 and 2 respectively. 2. Congestion Severity Descriptions The values produced for each corridor by the Regional Congestion Severity formula are ranked to create a congestion severity table ranging from the most to the least congestion. For analytical and evaluative purposes, four descriptive levels of congestion were created. The corridors were grouped into 21 severely congested corridors, 17 seriously congested corridors, 23 moderately congested corridors, and 12 minimally congested corridors based on their calculated severity value. Each Level is explained below. a) Severe Congestion Severe congestion is characterized by a condition of heavy traffic congestion resulting in significantly slower traveling speeds, longer trip times, significant queuing and high side-street delay. Contributing factors include vehicle volume, pedestrian volumes, multi-purpose lane utilization, multi-modal utilization and availability, functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges, vehicle crashes and uncoordinated signalized intersections. These corridors will greatly benefit from further study to identify recommendations useful in relieving congestion. These corridors are operating above capacity and driving conditions are highly unstable. b) Serious Congestion Serious congestion is characterized by a condition of medium traffic congestion approaching unstable flow caused by slower travel speeds, RTP Appendix

103

queuing and increased levels of delay. Contributing factors include vehicle volumes, pedestrian volumes and the number of signalized and unsignalized intersections along the corridor. These corridors operate at or near capacity. c) Moderate Congestion Moderate congestion is characterized by a condition of stable traffic congestion and flow, non-sporadic travel speeds and reasonable trip times. Contributing factors include reasonable traffic volume and opportunities for non-recurring congestion. These corridors may have small pockets of congestion, but generally operate at posted speed limits. d) Minimal Congestion Minimal congestion is characterized by a condition of ideal traffic congestion operating at desired travel speeds, with reasonable trip times and little to no queuing or delay. These corridors are ideal for commuting purposes and operate at free-flow travel speeds. 3. Findings The results of the Regional Congestion Severity formula are summarized in Tables 8-1 – 8-4 and Figure 8-1. Based on the new rankings, 21 of the 73 corridors are classified as severe, 17 as serious, 23 corridors as moderate, and 12 corridors as minimal. The regional congestion severity rank has been color coded for map readability. The rankings have been defined as follows; Severe Congestion is color coded red, Serious Congestion is color coded orange, Moderate Congestion is color coded yellow, and Minimal Congestion is color coded green. The column tilted Previous Rank is the Rank for each corridor based on the 2010 CMP update. Of the 15 corridors ranked as Severe Congestion in 2010, 8 of the corridors are still listed as severe, but 3 of the 15 are now ranked as serious congestion and 4 are ranked as moderate Congestion. This is likely a result of now having updated travel time data for all 73 corridors (6 previously un-scored corridors are now classified as having severe congestion) and completed transportation improvement projects.

RTP Appendix

104

Table 8-1 – Corridors with Severe Congestion

Severity Previous Congestion Corridor Community Route Name Rank Rank Severity Total

1 12 84 Springfield/Chicopee St, James St from State St to Broadway (Chicopee) 77.78 Beginning Main St at Center St (Chicopee City Line) travel southbound on Main St 2 NA 78 Springfield Chicopee 74.02 ending at State St 3 13 25 Springfield Sumner Ave - Longhill Road to East Longmeadow TL 73.43 AM Run Hampden St. from Route 202 Rotary to I-91, PM Run Dwight Street from I-91 to 4 1 69 Holyoke 73.21 Route 202 Rotary Beginning at the intersection of Route 32 (Palmer Road) and Bacon Road traveling 5 NA 58 Ware northbound to Route 9 (Main St), continuing eastbound ending at the intersection of 72.67 Route 9 and Knox Ave Chicopee St from Florence St to Front St, Front St to Cabot St, Cabot St to Exchange St, 6 2 75 Chicopee Exchange St to Center St, Center St to Front St Front to Grove St, Grove St to Main St, 71.06 Main St to East Main St ending at Maple St. Beginning at the intersection of Dwight St and Linden St traveling southbound on Dwight 7 NA 70 Holyoke 70.67 St ending at the intersection of Dwight St and South Main St 8 11 79 Springfield E. Columbus Ave - From Bruno Street to Liberty Street 65.88 McKinstry St. from Arcade St to Granby Rd, Granby Rd to Westover Rd ending at Bernice 9 6 74 Chicopee 65.82 St 10 23 12 Springfield Rt 21(Parker St) - N. Branch PKWY to East St. 63.22 11 26 31 Westfield Rt. 20 - E. Mountain Rd. to Elm St. 62.01 Dickinson St, Maple St, and Chestnut St from the X to Dover St Dwight St, Maple St, 12 NA 83 Springfield 60.83 and Dickinson St from Dover St ending at the X Beginning at the intersection of Main Street (Holyoke) and Route 5 (Ingleside St) travel Holyoke South eastbound on Main St to Race St to Canal St northbound on Route 116 (Vietnam 13 NA 68 59.47 Hadley Veterans Memorial Bridge) to Bridge St (South Hadley) Lamb St. (Route 116) ending at the intersection of Lamb St and Gaylord St 14 15 77 Springfield Liberty St - From West Columbus Ave to Amory St, Armory St north to Atwater Ter 57.67 Beginning at the exit to the Route 202 Rotary and Purple Heart Dr traveling eastbound 15 NA 57 South Hadley Granby on Route 202 (Granby Rd) into Granby ending at the Five Corners (Pleasant/Amherst St 57.01 intersection) 16 18 80 Springfield W. Columbus Ave - From Clinton Street to South Street 55.33 17 8 66 Agawam Route 75 from Long Brook Estates to Colony Road 54.33 Beginning at the intersection of Chapin St and Holyoke St traveling eastbound on Chapin 18 NA 61 Ludlow St through Ludlow into Wilbraham on Cottage Street ending at the intersection of 54.33 Cottage St and Boston Road (Wilbraham) 19 54 11 Longmeadow Route 5 - Mill Rd. to I-91 53.67 20 47 41 Hadley/Northampton Bay Rd. - From Atkins corner to Route 9 53.00 E. Longmeadow / 21 28 8 Rt. 83, Springfield st. - Sumner Ave.. to Quaryhill Rd. 51.61 Springfield RTP Appendix

105

Table 8-2 – Corridors with Serious Congestion

Severity Previous Congestion Corridor Community Route Name Rank Rank Severity Total

22 5 42 Holyoke Maple Street from Lyman to Route 5 via South Street 49.60 Snell Street from Route 116 north to University Drive, East on Mass Ave, South on N 23 20 67 Amherst 49.00 Pleasant St., North on East Pleasant ending at Eastmen Lane. 24 19 52 Springfield Bay St. from Boston Rd to State St. 48.88 25 NA 7 Chicopee I-291, Burnett Rd - Exit 5 to Holyoke St (Ludlow) to Chapin to Fuller to West Ave. 48.33 26 4 71 Holyoke Appleton Street from Dwight to North Canal Street 48.24 Beginning on Route 159 (Main Street) from Ct Stateline traveling northbound on Route 27 NA 65 Agawam 46.67 159 to Springfield Street ending at the intersection of Springfield St and Columbus St.

Beginning at the intersection Converse St and Route 5 (Longmeadow St) traveling Longmeadow East Eastbound to Dwight Street southbound on Dwight St to Chestnut St (East 28 NA 63 46.33 Longmeadow Longmeadow) travel eastbound on Chestnut St to Shaker Rd then northbound on Shaker Rd to Elm St ending at the intersection of Elm St and Taylor St. Rt. 20A - From East St to Page, Page to Paco to Boston Road, Start and end @ St. 29 34 23 Springfield 46.18 James and Carew 30 50 36 Wilbraham Main St - Tinkham Rd/Main to Cottage/Boston Rd 46.00 31 39 15 Northampton Rt. 9 - Florence St. to Day Ave 44.00 32 40 14 Hadley/Northampton Bridge St at Route 9 to Damon Road -Damon Rd to Bridge/Main to Rt. 9 Aqua Vita 41.67 33 17 18 Springfield Main St., Locust St., Belmont Ave. - State/Main to Belmont (The X) 41.67 34 14 22 Springfield Roosevelt Av. - Sumner to East St. 41.44 35 29 21 Springfield/Chicopee Liberty St - From I-291(Go thru rotary) to Broadway (Chicopee) to I-90 Exit 5 41.00 Beginning at the intersection of Parker St and the North Branch Parkway traveling 36 NA 55 Springfield southbound on Parker St to Cooley St continue southbound on Cooley St ending at the 40.88 East Longmeadow T.L. Beginning at the intersection of Fuller Rd and Route 33 Memorial Dr eastbound on 37 NA 62 Chicopee Ludlow Fuller Rd to Shawinigan Drive to West Ave ending at the intersection of West Ave and 40.31 Center Street (Ludlow) West Springfield/ North Boulevard to South Boulevard to Rotary to Plainfield Street to Carew Street ending 38 51 20 40.18 Springfield/Chicopee at East Main Street (Chicopee)

RTP Appendix

106

Table 8-3 – Corridors with Moderate Congestion

Severity Previous Congestion Corridor Community Route Name Rank Rank Severity Total

39 16 51 Northampton Route 5 Exit 18 to MassHighway District 2 Building 39.85 40 46 39 Belchertown Route 9/181 Federal St from Bay to Route 181n at Jensen Road (Belchertown) 39.00 Chicopee St from Willamansett Bridge to Yelle St, Yelle St to Montgomery Street, 41 7 72 Chicopee 37.21 Montgomery St to Memorial Dr (Route 33) 42 42 49 Springfield/Wilbraham Rt. 20 / Boston Raod - All of Boston Road 36.88 43 36 33 Westfield/Southwick Rt. 10/202 - CT Line to Washington St. (Law Offices) 36.00 44 3 30 Westfield Rt 10/202/, N. Elm St. from Southampton T.L. to Main St. 34.68 45 21 73 Chicopee Grattan St from Chicopee St (Route 116) to Memorial Dr (Route 33) 34.67 46 22 28 West Springfield Rt. 20 - East Mountain Road to Elm Street to Park Street to North End Rotary. 33.04 East Main St (Chicopee) to Worcester St (Springfield) to Main St (Indian Orchard) to River 47 33 86 Springfield/Chicopee 32.67 Rd ending at Weston St. 48 10 9 Holyoke Laurel St to Brown St to South St to High Street ending at Lyman St. 32.09 49 27 85 Springfield Bradley Rd from Sumner Ave to Boston Rd 31.85 50 41 50 Easthampton Route 141 from Route 10 to I-91 31.67 Beginning at the intersection of Route 202 (State St) and Underwood St traveling 51 NA 59 Belchertown eastbound and then northbound on Route 202 (Maple St and Main St) ending at the 30.33 intersection of Route 202 (North Main St) and Sargent St Jarvis St/ Beech St. - from George Frost Dr to Rt 202 Rotary and back up Linden St to 52 9 44 Holyoke 29.67 Georg Frost Dr 53 35 27 West Springfield / Holyoke Rt. 5 - E. elm St to Providence Hospital 28.98 54 44 53 Palmer Route 32 from High St. to Route 20 to Boston Rd. 27.67 55 32 24 Springfield State St. - Columbust Ave. to Boston rd 26.84 56 24 37 Holyoke Rt. 5 - River Terrace to Providence Hospital 26.77 57 49 56 Hadley Route 9 from Aquavita Rd to Belchertown Road (Amherst) 26.67 Springfield Street from Center at Chicopee to Chestnut to Main to Bernie end at West 58 30 82 Springfield 24.00 Street Springfield St - Mill Street (Agawam) to Memorial Ave (West Springfield) to Main St 59 25 2 Agawam 23.57 (Springfield) 60 57 48 West Springfield Dewey, Pease, Morgan, Birnie - Dewey/Rt 20 to Birnie/Prospect 23.33 Beginning at the Intersection of Wilbraham Rd and State St traveling eastbound on 61 NA 54 Springfield Wilbraham Rd, Wilbraham Rd turns into Springfield St (Wilbraham) ending at the 22.98 intersection of Springfield St and Main St

RTP Appendix

107

Table 8-4 – Corridors with Minimal Congestion

Severity Previous Congestion Corridor Community Route Name Rank Rank Severity Total Beginning at the intersection of Bliss St and Route 5 (Longmeadow St) traveling Longmeadow East eastbound on Bliss St to Williams St eastbound on Williams St to Maple St (East 62 NA 64 20.67 Longmeadow Longmeadow) eastbound on Maple St to Pleasant Street ending at the intersection of Pleasant St and Taylor St. 63 NA 19 Springfield Longmeadow I-91 Exit 12 to CT Exit 49 19.67 64 38 40 Chicopee Memorial Dr. Rt. 33 - From Rout 202 to I-90 19.67 65 31 35 Wilbraham Stony Hill Rd. - Tinkham Rd to River Rd to Route 21 18.47 66 53 16 Northampton/Easthampton Rt. 10 - Donais St. to Route 9 17.33 67 55 1 Agawam Rt. 57 - Rt. 5 on Ramp to end of Rt 57, N on RT 187, West of old 57 to Southwick T.L. 15.31 68 45 13 Ludlow Center St. and East St. - Rood Street to Owens Way 15.26 69 37 10 Holyoke Lower Westfield Rd., Homestead Ave - Elbert Dr. to Holyfamily Rd. 13.22 Meadow St., Pine St., Bridge St., and Market Hill - Market and South Hills to Meadow and 70 52 5 Amherst 10.00 Roosevelt Beginning at the intersection of Main St and Poets Corner Rd traveling westbound on 71 NA 60 Amherst Main st St to Amity St ending at the intersection of Rocky Hill Rd and North Pleasant St 9.33 in Hadley. 72 48 3 Agawam Route 75 from Mill Street to Main Street 7.00 Route 187 - From Route 20 (Westfield) to Springfield St (Agawam), Springfield St to Mill 73 56 4 Agawam 6.85 ST.

RTP Appendix

108

Figure 8-1 – Congested Corridors and Bottlenecks in the Pioneer Valley

RTP Appendix

109

4. Transit Congestion Severity Ranking PVPC is in the process of developing a transit congestion severity ranking. This measure will help quantify the number of transit users being impacted by delays on the PVPC CMP corridors. In order to develop a Transit Severity Ranking PVPC will overlay PVTA’s fixed routes on the CMP corridors in order to identify locations were bus occupancy and on time performance can be measured against the results of the regional roadway congestion severity analysis (see Figures 8-2 and 8-3). By doing this we can identify the number of transit users, number of buses, and the number of routes being influenced by congestion. This analysis may also help identify correlations between automobile delay and transit OTP. By including ridership we can then calculate the number of transit travelers being impacted by congestion. For the RTP we will be including two routes for this analysis. The full system analysis will be completed at a later date as part of the CMP update. The routes being looked at are the Northampton portion of the Blue 43, this transit route corresponds to CMP corridor 15 (Route 9 in Northampton). The second route being looked at is the G1, this transit route corresponds with CMP corridor 78 (Main Street in Springfield). These two CMP corridors were selected based on their high congestion severity ranking. The two transit routes selected also experience high ridership. Table 8-5 – Transit Severity Data Transit Average Maximum Number of Number of Alights Boardings Corridor 78 Main Street - Springfield Route Ridership Riders buses Trips G1 NB am 12 28 150 89 5 Severity Rank (Score) 2 (74.02) 7 G1 SB am 15 27 116 141 6 Delay 434.21 G1 NB pm 13 36 163 116 6 Ratio 7 13 G1 SB pm 19 38 105 188 13 Index 2.03 Average 14.75 32.25 133.5 133.5 10 7.5 Transit Average Maximum Number of Number of Alights Boardings Corridor 15 Route 9 - Northampton Route Ridership Riders buses Trips B43 EB am 8 22 6 90 6 Severity Rank (Score) 31(44) 4 B43 WB am 7 15 30 1 5 Delay 156.71 B43 EB pm 12 25 38 107 6 Ratio 1.97 6 B43 WB pm 11 24 57 0 5 Index 1.5 Average 9.5 21.5 32.75 49.5 5 5.5 Table 8-5 shows the different types of data available to for analysis; for PVTA’s fixed routes and how it can be matched up with our CMP data. The data is summarized by direction of travel and time period (AM = 7-9, PM = 4-6). The data can also be broken out by stop or stops to better correspond with the segmentation of our CMP corridors. More in-depth analysis will be done as part of our next CMP update.

RTP Appendix

110

Table 8-5 also shows the average ridership by direction for both AM and PM peak periods, as well as the maximum number of riders on the bus while the bus was traveling on the CMP corridor. A significant number of alightings and boardings were recorded on the G1 in Springfield; this was due to transfers at the Springfield Bus Terminal. The table also includes information on how many buses travel the route during the peak hours as well as how many trips were made. By overlaying the transit data over our CMP data we are able to see that the portion of the G1 route experiences a severe congestion with a congestion severity ranking of 2. The B43 route also experience serious congestion with a congestion severity ranking of 31. As we advance this process we anticipate being able to identify points along our corridors where congestion directly impacts the transit experience.

B. PIONEER VALLEY REGION BOTTLENECKS 1. Introduction The CMP “Bottlenecks” analysis further refines the existing CMP methodology and evaluates individual roadway segments along each corridor. Segments are determined on a corridor by corridor basis and vary in length and physical characteristics. As a result, the degree of congestion severity can vary significantly along a given corridor. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines a congestion bottleneck as “A localized section of highway that experiences reduced speeds and inherent delays due to a recurring operational influence or a nonrecurring impacting event”1. If congestion occurs along an entire corridor, then the corridor is considered congested. Likewise, if the corridor is experiencing congestion only at a specific location, then the corridor is considered a congestion bottleneck. 2. Analysis Each roadway segment was ranked based on the inverse value of each of the travel time performance measures. Currently, there are a total of 456 roadway segments with travel time data available. The ranking scheme ranges from 1 to 456 with a value of 4456 indicating the highest level of congestion and 1 indicating the lowest level of congestion. For segments that had the same rank, priority was given to the corridor with the higher Travel Time Index. PVPC used this process to identify the top 15 congested segments in the region to identify the top bottlenecks in the Pioneer Valley Region. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8-6.

1 http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/bn/lbr.htm#g3 RTP Appendix

111

Figure 8-2 – Map Analysis G1 Bus Route and CMP Corridor 78 in Springfield Springfield

To Center Street - Chicopee

PVTA G1 Route overlaid on CMP Corridor 78 – Main Street Springfield

Main Street CMP Corridor 78

State Street

Map Key: Blue line indicates CMP corridor Red highlight indicates transit route Green Doted Line indicates municipal boundary Black lines represent roads

RTP Appendix

112

Figure 8-3 – Map Analysis B43 Bus Route and CMP Corridor 15 in Northampton Northampton

To Day Ave

PVTA B43 Route overlaid on CMP Corridor 15 – Main Street Northampton

King Street (Route 5/10)

Prospect Street

Main Street (Route 9) CMP Corridor 15

Pleasant Street (Route 5) N

Map Key: Blue line indicates CMP corridor Red highlight indicates transit route Green Doted Line indicates municipal boundary Black lines represent roads

RTP Appendix

113

Table 8-6 – Congestion Bottlenecks in the Pioneer Valley Region

Rank Municipality Bottleneck Location Score 1 Chicopee Grove Ave/Front Street @ Grove Street - Chicopee 452 2 Springfield Carew Street @ Saint James Avenue - Springfield 450 3 Holyoke Dwight @ Race Street to Dwight at Maple Street- 448 Holyoke 4 Ware Main Street @ South Street/Church Street to Main 447 Street @ North Street- Ware 5 Springfield Main Street @ Boland Way/Harrison Ave - Springfield 444 6 Springfield Sumner Ave @ The "X" - Springfield 444 7 Granby West State Street @ Pleasant Street (5 Corners) - 443 Granby 8 Agawam / West Memorial Ave @ River Street to Suffield Street @ Main / 441 Springfield Springfield Street including Walnut Street - Agawam / West Springfield 9 Longmeadow Dwight @ Maple/Williams - Longmeadow 439 10 Wilbraham Main Street @ Boston Road - Wilbraham 438 11 Holyoke Hampden Street (141) @ Nonotuck Street - Holyoke 438 12 Northampton Main Street (Route 9) @ Pleasant /King Street - 436 Northampton 13 Hadley / Massachusetts @ Commonwealth Ave - UMass 432 Amherst (UMass) 14 Chicopee I-291 @ Exit 6 - Chicopee 430 15 Chicopee Westover Road @ Bernice Street - Chicopee 428

RTP Appendix

114

LIVABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE APPENDIX

A. MEPA REQUIREMENT FOR GHG EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires that all major projects proposed in the Commonwealth that have state involvement (in the form of state permits, land transfers, or financial assistance, for example) undertake an assessment of project impacts and alternatives in an effort to avoid, minimize, and mitigate damage to the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Building on this general requirement, the MEPA GHG Policy requires that certain projects undergoing review by the MEPA office quantify their GHG emissions and identify measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such emissions. In addition to quantifying project-related GHG emissions, the MEPA GHG Policy also requires proponents to evaluate project alternatives that may result in lower GHG emissions, and to quantify the impact of proposed mitigation in terms of emissions and energy savings. The MEPA GHG Policy is primarily applied to commercial and residential real estate development projects, but also applies to industrial and energy generation projects. Clean Energy Economy Impacts: By requiring project proponents to evaluate all feasible measures to reduce their GHG emissions, such as energy efficiency upgrades, fuel switching, incorporation of renewable energy measures, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled, the MEPA GHG Policy supports the development of industries and jobs to supply these technologies. In addition, the avoided fuel and electricity use, due to enhanced efficiency of projects, reduce long-term operational costs of the projects. Rationale: The principal purpose of the MEPA GHG Policy is to require project proponents to undertake a thorough analysis of a project’s primary sources of GHG emissions at an early stage of project planning, and to examine all feasible alternatives that may have lower GHG emissions potential. By conducting this early-stage impacts and alternatives analysis, project proponents can integrate directly into project planning sustainable design considerations that will allow the project to achieve GHG emissions reductions in the most economical manner. Policy Design and Issues: For the majority of projects subject to the MEPA GHG Policy, the Policy requires comparison of emissions associated with the proposed project design to the emissions that would result from construction of an identical building code-compliant project. In this way, the MEPA GHG Policy is closely related to issues surrounding the adoption of Advanced Building Energy Codes and other energy efficiency improvements for buildings. Similarly, where the MEPA GHG Policy encourages adoption of renewable energy components, it is closely related to issues involved in the implementation of incentives for generating renewable energy (see the Developing a Mature Market for Renewable Thermal Technologies policy). The MEPA GHG Policy also aims to reduce vehicle miles traveled in coordination with other state policies. GHG Impact: To date, more than 200 projects have initiated review in accordance with the MEPA GHG Policy, and more than 100 projects have

RTP Appendix

115

completed MEPA review with a finding that their completed GHG analysis was consistent with the MEPA GHG Policy. Projects that had completed review have achieved an average reduction of 19 percent in stationary source GHGs below an equivalent code-compliant project and an average reduction of 5% APPENDIX 108 percent in mobile sources. In total, the MEPA GHG Policy has resulted in commitments to reduce GHG emissions by over 190,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. However, reductions associated with the MEPA GHG Policy may be duplicative of the reductions achieved by other state policies designed to increase efficiency, encourage renewable energy generation, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Costs: The upfront costs of incorporating GHG reduction measures will vary widely depending upon the project, and many costs will be offset through energy savings. Because the MEPA GHG Policy does not mandate a specified level of reductions, but rather asks project proponents to adopt ”feasible" measures, measures that are considered infeasible from a cost perspective may be eliminated from consideration. Experience in Other States: The MEPA GHG Policy is a nation- leading policy. Other states, including California and New York, have adopted similar policies, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which oversees implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by federal agencies, has also released a draft policy concerning consideration of GHG emissions as part of the NEPA review of individual projects. Legal Authority: The Global Warming Solutions Act specifically amended the MEPA statute to provide that: In considering and issuing permits, licenses, and other administrative approvals and decisions, the respective agency, department, board, commission, or authority shall also consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional GHG emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise. See M.G.L. c. 30, §61. The MEPA GHG Policy was introduced and is being applied through MEPA review to address the Commonwealth’s obligations under the GWSA. Implementation Issues: The MEPA GHG Policy has become a routine part of the environmental impact review process. For real estate development projects, the assessment and review of a project’s GHG analysis has become generally accepted by the regulated industry and the public

B. MUNICIPAL VULNERABILITY PREPAREDNESS UPDATED CLIMATE PROJECTIONS / RESILIENCE ANALYSIS The Massachusetts Climate Change Projections - Statewide and for Major Drainage Basins: Temperature, Precipitation, and Sea Level Rise Projections project was developed by NE CASC with funding by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Sept. 2016 Governor Baker signed a Comprehensive Executive Order committing the administration to work across the state to plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The goal of this project was to develop down scaled projections for changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs has RTP Appendix

116

provided support for these projections to enable municipalities, industry, organizations, state government and others to utilize a standard, peer-reviewed set of climate change projections that show how the climate is likely to change in Massachusetts through the end of this century. a) Temperature and Precipitation The down-scaled, or localized, temperature and precipitation projections are based on simulations from the latest generation of climate models from the International Panel on Climate Change and scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. The models were carefully selected from a larger ensemble of climate models based on their ability to provide reliable climate information for the Northeast U.S., while maintaining diversity in future projections that capture some of the inherent uncertainty in modeling climate variables like precipitation. Both annual and seasonal projections are available at the statewide and major drainage basin geographic scales. b) Sea Level Rise Future sea level projections are provided for the Massachusetts coastline at established tide gauge stations with long-term records at Boston Harbor, MA, Nantucket, MA, Woods Hole, MA, and Newport, RI. The projections are adjusted to each station’s mean sea level and converted to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The sea level projections are based on a methodology which provides complete probability distributions for different scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. The methodology for developing these projections closely follows the approach utilized for the recent city of Boston’s sea level rise projections in 2016 and similar analyses for the states of California and New Jersey. c) Hydrological Assessment The flow of a stream represents an integrated basin response to climatic variables, especially precipitation and temperature. Changes over time in the seasonal flow of streams that drain unregulated basins with stable land use generally reflect changes in climatic variables and can be used as indicators of climate change. This work concluded that March mean stream flows increased significantly over time, by 76 percent to 185 percent at the seven stream flow gaging stations with the longest continuous record in areas of New England. May mean stream flows significantly decreased at 10 stations in northern or mountainous sections of Maine and New Hampshire, and May mean flows decreased by 9 to 46 percent at the seven stations with the longest continuous records. This aligns with the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that annual temperatures and precipitation in New England increased in the 20th century. The results from this study can be seen on the Baker-Polito Administration Resilient MA Climate Clearinghouse: http://www.resilientma.org/data/data

RTP Appendix

117

Photo: PVTA Loop Shuttle CHAPTER 13 - FUTURE FORECASTS APPENDIX Air quality conformity regulations related to the latest planning assumptions require a consistent approach to estimate future population, household and employment data used in the regional transportation plan. This data is input into the regional transportation model to estimate future traffic volumes in the region which can in turn be used to analyze the effects of transportation improvement projects, identify areas where congestion could occur in the future, and perform an air quality conformity determination for the region. The MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning (OTP) led the effort of developing forecasts for future population and employment for Massachusetts and each MPO region. This was a collaborative effort between MassDOT's Office of Transportation Planning (OTP), the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), and the UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI). These three entities, in consultation with the thirteen regional planning agencies, acted as the Projections Advisory Committee (PAC) tasked with estimating the

RTP Appendix

119

potential for future growth and decline across the state over 30 years from 2010 to 2040. Data sources used in developing the demographic forecasts are listed in Table 13-1. Procedures and preliminary estimates were reviewed by the PVPC through the PAC. Control totals were allocated to the 43 communities in the Pioneer Valley region based on current trends and the potential for future growth. Household projections were calculated based on population projections derived from the Census estimates from the five-year American Community Survey (ACS). Table 13-1 – Data Sources of Forecasts for the Pioneer Valley Region UMass Donahue Institute Long-term Population Projections for Massachusetts Regions and Municipalities update V2015 launch re-set, November 2017. Census 2011-2015 ACS Five Year Estimates used by UMass Donahue Institute. RPA inputs to MAPC's MassBuilds development database, August 2017 - July 2018. MAPC Labor Force Projections, January 2018. Public Use Micro Data Sample (PUMS) 2008-2012 and 2012-2016 used by MAPC. MAPC Household Projections, May 2018. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) monthly unemployment data by city/town from 1990 to 2017 sourced from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. Census tract-level commuting pattern data from the Census Bureau’s LEHD (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES), 2011-2015. Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD) tables titled Employment and Wages (ES-202) for Hampshire and Hampden counties compiled by PVPC staff. UMass Donahue Institute Employment Projections, October 2, 2018. MassDOT Planning Projections Final for RTPs, 18 November 2, 2018. PVPC Planning staff adjustments and calculations: January 2018 - January 2019. Long-term population projections were updated from the values estimated in 2015 by UMDI staff. The previous methodology used was modified to include a new migration modeling methodology. The updated population projections were used to develop demographically-based projections for households and labor force. UMDI created a feedback loop between population, households, labor force, and jobs to ensure smooth relationships between factors and conformity to long-term historic trends.

RTP Appendix

120

Household projections considered the following variables: group quarter population, age of householder by type of household, rates of household formation by type of household, housing production, headship rates, and jobs. Labor force projections considered current projections by UMDI for working age and labor force. Additional variables incorporated into the projections included labor force participation rates (LFPRs) by age group and region. Jobs projections and employment, considered fluctuations from economic cycles. Job growth was constrained by findings from labor force projections and labor force participation rates. Other considerations included the long- term relationship between payroll, jobs, working age, and labor force as well as non-employer job trends. Initial municipal population and employment projection estimates were provided by MassDOT. Thereafter, PVPC staff adjusted the values by reallocating growth among each community based on current trends and local staff knowledge of the opportunity for additional growth and major development planned throughout all forecast years. The resulting forecasts for population, households and employment are shown in Tables 13-2 – 13-4. An alternate regional specific scenario for employment estimates in the 2020 forecast year was subsequently developed by the PVPC. A description of the forecast process and summary of the calculation methods follows.

A. POPULATION The Population Projections Model developed by UMDI provided population projections by age and sex. Race shares were applied from MAPC's 2014 projections. Compound annual growth rates (CAGR) by regional area were compared from historic trends between 1980-2000 and 2000-2016 then the net population change was calculated between 1980 and 2015. A college fix was applied to the population of regions with a high percentage of college students. Typically, the college population does not age or migrate, while non-college population ages forward and is subject to rates of migration. A new college population was determined by share of U.S. cohort from data of the 2007-2011 ACS. The newer methodology recognized that a percentage of the college population may age in place and join the non-college population. This college fix was applied to population projections in Hampshire County in the Pioneer Valley region. Historic trends for the share of foreign-born population were also analyzed and percentages by county were calculated. Population change was also impacted by domestic migration, international migration, and natural

RTP Appendix

121

increases due to births. These components of population change were estimated between the years of 2000-2016 by UMDI. These rates were multiplied by the launch population and resulting values of birth and migrations were added to the launch population while deaths were subtracted from it. Finally, the statewide population projections were distributed across the regional planning areas. The updated launch year used Census V2016 county estimates for the year 2015. Each community in the Pioneer Valley was reviewed in great detail with regards to population projections. PVPC staff examined past trends, growth allocations used in past projections, and historic building permit activity. A recent rise in building permit activity was viewed as an indicator for potential growth. Adjustments were made to projections based on past growth patterns, land use changes, economic development, and transportation trends while maintaining the regional control total developed by MassDOT.

B. HOUSEHOLDS The Household Model developed by MAPC utilized the UMDI population projections. The portion of the population in households was calculated by subtracting those living in group quarters based on Census 2010 rates by age and municipality. Living arrangements were then categorized by applying region-specific rates of household type and householder status from the 2008-2012 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data. Three household type categories were used: single person, household with child under 18, and all other households. Finally, the number of household were calculated by multiplying the rates derived from the PUMS data by the population projected by UMDI as categorized by age and sex for the 2010 Census year and 2015 new base year, as well as subsequent projected future years. The UMDI allocated the total population projections into community level projections for the Commonwealth using 2015 values as a base year for future projections. The 13 planning agencies were asked to identify any changes in group quarters between the 2010 Census Year and the new 2015 base year. The total number of people living in group quarters in each of the communities was then subtracted from the total population of that community to arrive at the population in households. Group quarter rates were based on 2010 rates by age and municipality and adjusted using data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012. PVPC staff divided the total number of households allotted to each of its communities into the various Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) for the region. This information was shared with MassDOT for use in their statewide model.

RTP Appendix

122

C. EMPLOYMENT MAPC generated labor force projections (rooted, in turn, by UMDI’s population projections) by RPA for historical years 2010 and 2015 as well as future years 2020, 2030, and 2040. These labor force projections form the basis of UMDI’s employment analysis and take into account changes in Massachusetts’ overall population, the aging of the present population into older age cohorts with lower levels of labor force participation (relative to the core 25-64 core workforce), and educational attainment levels. Massachusetts is trending towards higher educational attainment which increases labor force participation rates. 1. Labor Force Model Development Overview Rates of education level specific to each regional planning areas were obtained from PUMS data for 2008-2012 period for model year 2010 and from 2012-2016 for base year 2015 and beyond. Labor Force Participation Rates were then created for each regional planning area by age, sex, and education level. These rates were derived from an average of the 2007-2011 and 2012- 2018 labor force estimates by age from the ACS data. Labor force participation rates were multiplied by the population projected earlier for 2010, 2015, and future years to come up with the total Labor Force in each year. 2. Employment Projections Overview Employment in Massachusetts was projected for the Commonwealth and divided into the regional planning areas. Labor Force estimates were incorporated into the employment projections to estimate future employment base and unemployment rates. The average unemployment rate by region was calculated from the average of historic monthly levels. It was assumed that the Pioneer Valley region would have a steady 6% average unemployment rate during future years. The employment base was calculated by subtracting the number of unemployed people from the labor force. People that commute into and out of the region for employment were projected using the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data. The LODES commuter data was used to convert employment data from place-of residence to place-of-work. Employment by industry type was developed using the Economic Modeling Specialists Intl. (EMSI) data. This was aggregated into three sectors: Retail, Service, and Basic employment. The MassDOT employment projections were reviewed by the PVPC and allocated across each community for the RTP analysis years. This information was forwarded to MassDOT for use in the statewide transportation model for air quality conformity purposes.

RTP Appendix

123

Table 13-2 – Population Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region

RTP Appendix

124

Table 13-3 – Household Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region

RTP Appendix

125

Table 13-4 – Employment Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region

RTP Appendix

126

3. Summary of Regional Demographic Projections The statewide projections for the Pioneer Valley region show a change in demographics with an overall growth over the 30 year period in population, households and employment. The change occurring each decade fluctuates in magnitude but declines in the second decade for employment as presented in Table 13-5.

Table 13-5 – Projected Change in Pioneer Valley Region

D. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT SCENARIO PVPC developed an in-house scenario for regional employment for use in the regional transportation model and RTP. This scenario results in an additional 23,105 employees for the 2020 analysis year. It was developed based on the following assumptions: 1. Employment growth out to 2020 largely mirrors that from 2010 – 2015. 2. Based on conversations with the Environment and Land Use department staff, 24 growth communities in the region were identified - Agawam, Amherst, Belchertown, Brimfield, Chicopee, E. Longmeadow, Easthampton, Granby, Hadley, Hatfield, Holyoke, Ludlow, Monson, Northampton, Palmer, South Hadley, Southampton, Southwick, Springfield, Ware, West Springfield, Westfield, Wilbraham, Williamsburg. 3. Growth communities received additional growth based on the actual growth in employment from 2010 – 2015 and current development trends. 4. Non-growth communities (with the exception of Longmeadow) were allocated growth based on the actual growth rate calculated from 2010 - 2015 for that community. 5. 2030 and 2040 employment estimates mirrored the projections developed by MassDOT in conjunction with UMDI. This alternate employment scenario was developed to reflect current regional trends and is presented in Table 13-6. This alternate regional employment scenario will be used in the regional transportation model but not in the statewide transportation model for air quality conformity purposes.

RTP Appendix

127

Table 13-6 – PVPC Scenario for Projected Employment Change

RTP Appendix

128

In reviewing the information the regional employment projections for the Pioneer Valley, MAPC calculated a total 2020 labor force of 280,357 after unemployment and commuting trends are factored in. UMDI then reduced this total to 261,527 in an attempt to conservatively reflect the aging population trends and high student population in the region. PVPC estimated a total of total of 284,632 workers in 2020. This aligns well with MAPC’s initial estimate for the region. The additional 4,275 employees could be explained by a decrease of 1 – 1.5% in unemployment or a change of 1 – 1.5% in the number of workers that currently leave the Pioneer Valley for jobs in Connecticut. This scenario is also more reflective of the recent development trends in the region. A large portion of the proposed 5,966 additional employees in the City of Springfield in the 2020 analysis year have already been realized through the completed casino, railcar factory, and hotel development projects in the city. 1. Summary The regional employment scenario presented in Table 13-6 does not align with the employment projections presented in Table 13-4. A regional specific employment scenario was developed to place a greater weight on recent development trends such as the MGM Casino in Springfield, MA and to reflect the growing employment trends that have occurred since 2015 in many communities in the region. This regional scenario also assumes a positive impact on population and employment as a result of expanded passenger rail service along the Knowledge Corridor line. The employment projections included in Table 13-4 are included in the statewide regional transportation model and will be used for air quality conformity purposes. The regional employment projections included in Table 13-6 are included in the PVPC regional transportation model and will be used for project level analysis for this RTP and future regional transportation studies.

E. REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL Travel demand forecasting is a major step in the transportation planning process. By simulating the current roadway conditions and travel demand, deficiencies in the transportation system are identified. This is an important tool in planning future network enhancements and analyzing proposed improvement projects. Travel demand models are developed to simulate actual travel patterns and existing demand conditions. Networks are constructed using current roadway inventory files containing data for each roadway within the network. Travel demand is generated using socioeconomic data such as household size,

RTP Appendix

129

automobile availability and employment data. Once the existing conditions are evaluated and adjusted to satisfactorily replicate actual travel patterns and vehicle roadway volumes, the model inputs are then altered to project future year conditions. There are four basic steps in the traditional travel demand forecasting process: trip generation, trip distribution, modal choice, and trip assignment. There is also a preliminary step of network and zone development and a subsequent step of forecasting future conditions. PVPC uses the TransCAD software to perform a 3-step process for forecasting near and future conditions including trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment. 1. Network and Zone Development a) Highway Network The preliminary step in the development of a travel demand model is identifying the network and dividing the area into workable units. The highway network is composed of nodes and lines. Nodes represent intersections or centroids. Centroids are used to identify the center of activity within a zone and connect the zone to the highway network. Lines represent roadway segments or centroid connectors. Centroid connectors represent the path from a centroid to the highway network and typically represent the local roads and private driveways within the centroid. General information required for network developments include system length, demand, service conditions and connections to zones. b) Transportation Analysis Zones A Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) is the basic geographic unit representing tabulated data on households and business establishments aggregated for a region. The activity center of a zone is represented by a centroid. The centroid is not necessarily the geographic center of a zone, but rather the point that best represents the average trip time in and out of a zone. A centroid connector links the zone with the roadway network. It often represents local streets that carry traffic out of or into a zone. Centroid connectors generally connect to adjacent collector or arterial roads. 1. Trip Generation

Trip generation is the first step in the modeling process. The goal is to identify the number of person trips that are made to and from each TAZ. Trip generation analysis estimates the number of trips that are produced by each TAZ and the number of trips attracted to each TAZ for each of the three trip purposes: • Home-Based Work (HBW) - trips from home to work;

RTP Appendix

130

• Home-Based Non-Work (HBNW) - trips from home to other destinations other than work; and • Non-Home Based (NHB) - trips from a place other than home.

Households generally produce trips, while employment and other activity centers generally attract trips. Estimates of household based trips are affected by socioeconomic factors such as auto ownership and household size. Employment based trips depend on employment type and size. The trip generation model uses forecasted demographic and employment data associated with a zone to calculate person trips. Subsequently, total trips produced are balanced with the total trips attracted to reconcile inconsistencies between them. Consistency is reached by holding either trip productions or trip attractions constant and then redistributing the other category of tips. 3. Trip Distribution Trip distribution determines the destination of the vehicle trips produced in each zone and how they are divided among all the other zones in the area. A relationship is developed between the number of trips produced by and attracted to zones and the accessibility of zones to other zones in terms of time and distance. A basic trip distribution model is the gravity distribution model. In the gravity model, trips between zones are calculated based on the origin zone size; possible destinations size; and, the distance to neighboring zones. A friction factor is used in the gravity model to relate travel time to zone attractiveness. Travel time between two zones is based on the travel route selected and the speed on each road along the travel route. In a typical gravity model: • Zone size is measured in terms of total population and total employment. • Distance is measured in terms of travel time. • A computerized assignment program calculates the shortest route between each pair of zones and selects the best travel route. 4. Mode Usage This step in the development of the travel model estimates the distribution of previous trips to various alternative mode choices. Mode choices may include a personal vehicle, transit, walking, bicycling, etc. Several factors affect a traveler’s decision regarding the travel modes available. These include the characteristics of the person making the trip, the characteristics of the trip, and the characteristics of the transportation system.

RTP Appendix

131

5. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is used to estimate the flow of traffic on a network. The trip assignment model takes as input a matrix of flows that indicate the volume of traffic between origin and destination pairs. The flows for each origin and destination pair are loaded on the network based upon the travel time or impedance of the alternative paths that could carry this traffic. 6. Forecasts The preparation of a future year socioeconomic database is the last step in the travel demand forecast process. Forecasts of population and socioeconomic data as well as the attributes affecting travel are used to determine the number of trips that will be made in the future. The basic future year forecasts include total regional population, total number of households, and total number of jobs. The forecasted values are then divided by community in a region and subsequently divided into the various TAZs. The zone-level estimates that forecasts provide are direct inputs in the travel demand forecasting model. Once travel demand is known and deficiencies identified, alternative transportation systems may be developed.

F. 2010 BASE YEAR MODEL The regional travel demand model is made up of three major components: a roadway network, transportation analysis zones, and socioeconomic data. Each of these components add a critical contribution to the development of a working transportation simulation model. Initial 2010 base year model efforts included using 2010 socioeconomic data in a Quick Response trip generation model to calculate the home-based work trips (HBW), and the home-based non work trips (HBNW) productions per housing unit. The non home-based trips (NHB) were calculated per retail employee, non-retail employee, and household. Standard vehicle occupancy rates were used to convert personal trips into vehicle trips before conducting the trip assignment process. This model continues to be updated based on guidance from MassDOT. 1. Network A roadway network represents the regional transportation system in the regional travel demand model. A highway network was developed based on the federal functional classification of roadways. All roadways in the region classified as interstate, principal arterial and collector were included in this highway network. Local roads carrying minimal through traffic were represented only as centroid connectors to areas of traffic activity in a TAZ. The characteristics of a roadway were coded as attributes and tabulated in a regional database for each line representing the roadway. Generally, speed

RTP Appendix

132

and capacity attributes were based on the functional classification of a roadway and determined from the state roadway inventory files for the region. Adjustments were made to these attributes based on field observations, examination of aerial photographs, and review of regional and local traffic studies. Adjustments to these inputs were also made to better replicate regional travel activity in the model simulation. Out of the 45,722 roadway links in the Pioneer Valley regional network, a third (15,476) are included in the model. 2. Transportation Analysis Zones Transportation Analysis Zones are geographic divisions of a region into analysis units that allow linking tabulated data to a physical location serviced by the roadway network. Attributes of a TAZ include socioeconomic data which would impact the generation of trips in a zone either by spurring the production of trips or the attraction of trips to that zone. The current TAZ's size and location is based on the 2010 Census because it is the most comprehensive, current, and readily available source of socioeconomic and demographic information. The Pioneer Valley area is divided by the census into units of geographic areas called blocks containing the socioeconomic and demographic information and aggregated into block groups. The 2010 TAZ's geographic boundaries match the 2010 census block group boundaries for the most part except for certain urban areas warranting further detail due to a concentration of activity. The Pioneer Valley region 2010 base year model has 462 internal zones, and 62 external zones that represent external stations. 3. Socioeconomic Data Basic socioeconomic data for the 2010 base year model came from the 2010 Census at the block level. Detailed socioeconomic data was obtained from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2009-2013 five year estimates at the tract level. The socio economic data included the following list of variables: population, number of households, population in households, population in group quarters, auto availability, income, and number of workers. The employment data for each of the communities in the region was obtained from the department of labor. The total number of workers in a community was then distributed into the various zones in that community according to their ratios in the ACS survey. After breaking down the number of jobs by job types they were aggregated into three categories: Basic, Retail, and Service. To build the 2010 Census block / TAZ and 2010 Census tract / TAZ lookup tables used to generate the demographic tables, the following steps were performed by MassDOT planning staff:

RTP Appendix

133

• The original TAZ shapefile based on the 2000 Census geographies was overlayed with 2010 Census block polygon features from the 2012 TIGER base map (ArcGIS identity tool). The quality of the 2012 TIGER is much better than that of earlier generations, and the features align quite well with those of other datasets in our spatial database as well as with aerial imagery. • The resulting polygon attributes were edited to ensure that TAZs nest completely within a single town. • Attributes were edited to ensure that 2010 Census blocks are not split among multiple TAZs. • The resulting block / TAZ lookup table was used to estimate total population, household population and group quarters population by TAZ from 2010 Census Summary File 1 block level statistics. This block / TAZ lookup was also used to generate the various factors in the 2010 Census tract / TAZ lookup table. • The tract / TAZ lookup table was used to generate the tables of household statistics (vehicles, workers, income) from the 2010 American Community Survey 5-year Summary File. Tract statistics were used to generate these tables due to high margins of error among block group estimates. The ACS household statistics were adjusted at the tract level to match 2010 Census total households before applying the tract / TAZ factors to generate the TAZ summaries. • The employment data was extracted from the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP) web query tool. This data is published at the tract level and was allocated to each TAZ based on the percentage of the land area of a tract that is contained in each of one or more TAZs. The CTPP employment estimates (collected between 2006 and 2010) were then adjusted so that town totals match the ES-202 totals published by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. 4. Regionally Significant Projects Only “regionally significant” projects are required to be included in travel demand modeling efforts. The final federal conformity regulations define regionally significant as follows: Regionally significant: a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sport complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.

RTP Appendix

134

“Non-Exempt” projects add capacity to the existing transportation system and must be included as part of the air quality conformity determination for the RTP. Examples of “Non-Exempt” projects include those defined as regionally significant in addition to projects expected to widen roadways for the purpose of providing additional travel lanes. Projects considered regionally significant were included as part of the 2010 Baseline model network and subsequent future model networks based on the project's expected construction date. These projects include non exempt system expansion projects that were financially constrained. The 2010 base year roadway network includes the following: • Hadley: Widening Route 9 from two lanes to four lanes from West Street to Coolidge Bridge. • Hadley/Northampton: Rehabilitation of the Coolidge Bridge with lane additionand widening from three lanes to four lanes. • Springfield: Reverse the direction of four existing I-91 ramps. • Westfield: Route 10/202 Great River Bridge project. • Holyoke: Commercial Street extension project from the I-391 ramp to Appleton Street. • Chester: Maple Street Bridge one way northbound, connecting Route 20 to Main Street.

The 2020 model network will include the following regionally significant projects: • Wilbraham: Boston Road reconstruction. Currently one lane in each direction, will become two lanes in each direction. Project starts at the Springfield City Line and continues east to Stony Hill Road (0.28 miles), but does not include Stony Hill Road. Expected in 2016. • Passenger Rail Service from Hartford, CT to Greenfield, MA. (Currently in operation but not modeled.) • Extension of the North South Passenger Rail Service from Springfield to serve stations in Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield. (Anticipated to begin this year.) • Reduction from 2 lanes of travel to one lane of travel in each direction along Route 116 (Chicopee Street) in the City of Chicopee from Meadow Street to Springfield Street (Davitt Bridge). This occurred in 2018.

The 2030 model network will include the following regionally significant projects: • Hadley -Route 9 widening from Middle Street to Maple Street from one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. Expected in 2026. RTP Appendix

135

The 2040 model network does not include any regionally significant projects:

Visionary Projects are discussed in Chapter 15 of the RTP and may be included as part of the 2040 model network for analysis purposes as follows: • MassDOT I-91 Viaduct Recommendations: − Interstate I-91 and South End Bridge improvements − The installation of collector-distributor roads alongside I-91 mainline and roundabouts at the South End Bridge and U.S. Route 5; reduction in on/off ramps; realignment of I-91; and elimination of existing lane drops in the vicinity of the South End Bridge. − Replacement of the Agawam Rotary with modified diamond interchange; replacement of the South End Bridge and Westfield River bridge to provide two travel lanes in each direction and a new shared-use path; new acceleration and deceleration lanes and proper left and right shoulders on both bridges; access to/from Meadow Street. − Replacement of the Plainfield Street bridges over I-91 and the existing railroad tracks with a third westbound travel lane. − Relocation of the existing left side on ramp from I-291 to I-91 SB to a more traditional right side on ramp. • A potential new Turnpike Exit in Blandford, pending the results of a current study by MassDOT. • East/West Passenger Rail Service to Boston pending the outcome of the current MassDOT study.

RTP Appendix

136

Figure 13-1 – Preferred Alternative Identified by the I-91 Viaduct Study

RTP Appendix

137

Figure 13-2 – Near- and Mid-Term I-91 Improvements (South Section)

Figure 13-3 – Longmeadow Curve Mid-Term Improvements of I-91

RTP Appendix

138

Figure 13-4 – Agawam: Modified Diamond Interchange Improvements

RTP Appendix

139

Figure 13-5 – Springfield: Plainfield Street Improvements

RTP Appendix

140

5. Estimated Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled

The total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was estimated for the model years of 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040. The total VMT is shown in Figure 13-6. The total VMT is projected to increase by an average of 0.6% per year from 2010 to 2020 and 0.3% per year from 2020 to 2040. Figure 13-6 – Estimated Future VMT

6. Future Traffic Volume Projections

a) Bridges

The estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on some of the regional bridges was projected for all four analysis years. The area bridges include the South End Bridge, Calvin Coolidge Bridge, Memorial Bridge, North End Bridge, and Great River Bridge. This information is shown in Figure 13-7. As shown in Figure 13-7, the ADT on the Calvin Coolidge Bridge is projected to significantly increase from 2010 to 2020 and again between 2030 and 2040. This is likely the result of forecasted growth in employment along the Route 9 corridor. In addition, the Route 9 widening project from one lane to two lanes through Hadley from Middle Street to Maple Street facilitates more traffic moving through the area. These roadway changes are incorporated into the roadway network of the 2030 and 2040 future year travel demand models.

RTP Appendix

141

Figure 13-7 – Projected Average Daily Traffic on Area Bridges

b) Interstate 90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) Within the Pioneer Valley region, traffic volumes on Interstate 90 (I-90) are projected to steadily increase between exits 4 and 8 from 2010 to 2040, as shown in Figure 13-8. c) Interstate 91 (I-91) The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on I-91 was projected at five points along its south/north path for the five model years as shown in Figure 13-9. These points include North of the Connecticut State line in the town of Longmeadow, South of I-291 in the City of Springfield, South of I-391 in City of Springfield, South of Lower Westfield Road in the City of Holyoke, and North of Exit 20 in City of Northampton. Traffic volumes are projected to steadily increase along I91 within the Pioneer Valley region in general. Traffic volumes along I-91 remain fairly steady South of I-291 and South of I-391 in Springfield, and South of Lower Westfield Road near Exit 15 in Holyoke. The exception to the steady pattern of growth occurs at both ends of the region. The future model year 2030 shows a decrease in traffic volumes on I-91 North of Exit 20 in Northampton and at the Connecticut State line. Growth in traffic volumes is estimated to return to these two locations in model year 2040.

RTP Appendix

142

Figure 13-8 – Projected Average Daily Traffic on the Massachusetts Turnpike

Figure 13-9 – Projected Average Daily Traffic on Interstate 91

RTP Appendix

143

d) Interstate 291 (I-291) Figure 13-10 shows the projected traffic volumes for three locations in Springfield on I-291. Steady increases in traffic volumes are projected for all three locations. Figure 13-10 – Projected Average Daily Traffic on Interstate 291

e) Interstate 391 Traffic volumes for Interstate 391 (I-391) are shown in Figure 13-11 at three points along the highway in the City of Chicopee. Moderate increases in traffic volumes are projected for this highway. f) Arterials Traffic volumes for major arterial roadways in the region are shown in Figures 13- 12 through 13-15. The following arterials are included in this analysis: • Northeast - Route 9, Route 116, Route 202, and Route 181. • Northwest - Route 5, Route 141, and Route 66. • Southeast - Route 33, Route 83, Route 21, and Route 20. • Southwest - Route 10/202, Route 20, and Route 57.

Most arterial roadway are expected to increase moderately in volume over the next 30 years. The highest increase in traffic volumes is expected to occur along Route 9 in Hadley near the Amherst Town Line and also along Route 10/202 over the Little River Bridge in Westfield.

RTP Appendix

144

Figure 13-11 – Average Daily Traffic on Interstate 391

Figure 13-12 – Projected Arterial Traffic Volumes in the Northeast Region

RTP Appendix

145

Figure 13-13 – Projected Arterial Traffic Volumes in the Northwest Region

Figure 13-14 – Projected Arterial Traffic Volumes in the Southeast Region

RTP Appendix

146

Figure 13-15 – Projected Arterial Traffic Volumes in the Southwest Region

RTP Appendix

147

PIONEER VALLEY PROJECT UNIVERSE

Draft TIP Municipality SID Project Name and Description Design TEC TEC Estimated CMAQ HSIP Jurisdiction EJ CIP DPH Score Rank Cost Agawam 607316 RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187, FROM 0 33.8 26 $ Municipal N N SOUTHWICK/SPRINGFIELD STREET TO ALLISON LANE (1.29 MILES - 5,562,610 PHASE II) Agawam 607317 AGAWAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187, FROM ALLISON 0 33.8 26 $ Municipal N N LANE TO THE WESTFIELD CITY LINE (1.69 MILES - PHASE III) 7,589,668 2021 Amherst 608084 AMHERST- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTES 9 & 25 53.5 10 $ MassDOT Y N 116, FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO SOUTH PLEASANT STREET (0.8 3,892,738 MILES) 2021 SW Amherst / 608719 AMHERST- BELCHERTOWN- NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL 0 19 $ Pending DCR Belchertown RESURFACING, FROM STATION ROAD IN AMHERST TO WARREN 1,083,220 WRIGHT ROAD IN BELCHERTOWN (1.5 MILES) Amherst / Pelham 609051 RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON BELCHERTOWN ROAD 0 30.5 28 $ Municipal N (ROUTE 9) FROM SOUTH EAST STREET TO THE BELCHERTOWN T.L. 7,055,628 (2.1 MILES) 2022 SW Belchertwon / 608466 BELCHERTOWN- GRANBY- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK 0 17 38 $ MassDOT Granby ON ROUTE 202 4,491,288 N Chesterfield 608886 RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTH ROAD AND DAMON POND ROAD 0 10 42 $ Municipal 4,441,000 N 2020 Chicopee 604434 RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON FULLER ROAD, FROM 75 49.5 13 $ Approved Yes Municipal N Y MEMORIAL DR (RTE 33) TO SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES) 8,034,211 Chicopee 609061 CHICOPEE - INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION, MONTGOMERY 0 46.5 15 $ Pending Pending Municipal N ROAD AT GRANBY ROAD AND MCKINSTRY AVENUE, AND 6,000,000 MONTGOMERY ROAD AT TURNPIKE ACCESS ROAD Removed Chicopee 602912 CHICOPEE- CHICOPEE RIVER RIVERWALK MULTI-USE PATH 25 33.0 15 $ Approved Municipal CONSTRUCTION, FROM GRAPE STREET TO FRONT STREET (NEAR 4,000,000 ELLERTON STREET) (1 MILE) 2020 SW Chicopee 602911 CHICOPEE- CONNECTICUT RIVERWALK & BIKEWAY 100 30.5 16 $ Approved Municipal CONSTRUCTION, FROM BOAT RAMP NEAR I-90 TO NASH FIELD (2.5 3,041,445 MILES), INCLUDES NEW BRIDGE C-13-060 OVER OVERFLOW CHANNEL Cummington 606797 ROUTE 9 RETAINING WALL 0 8.0 44 $ MassDOT N 1,660,000 D1 N 2022 Easthampton 608577 EASTHAMPTON- IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON UNION 25 60.0 8 $ Municipal N STREET (ROUTE 141) FROM PAYSON AVENUE TO HIGH STREET 3,284,450 (0.36 MILES) Easthampton/ 608423 IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON TWO SECTIONS OF 0 28.5 30 $ MassDOT N Southampton ROUTE 10 IN EASTHAMPTON AND SOUTHAMPTON 2,799,540 Goshen 602888 ROUTE 9 RECONSTRUCTION 0 25.0 33 $ MassDOT N N 7,500,000 D1 2023 Granby 606895 ROUTE 202 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 2 LOCATIONS @ 5 25 42.0 19 $ Pending Yes MassDOT N Y CORNERS AND @ SCHOOL STREET 2,588,655 Granville 608736 GRANVILLE- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 57 0 29.0 29 $ Municipal N 7,000,000 2021/2022 Hadley 605032 HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE STREET 25 61.0 7 $ Yes MassDOT N N TO MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET 23,893,982 Hadley 608089 INTERSECTION, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS @ 0 25.5 32 $ MassDOT N N ROUTES 9, 116 & WESTGATE CENTER DRIVE 1,544,720

RTP Appendix

149

Draft TIP Municipality SID Project Name and Description Design TEC TEC Estimated CMAQ HSIP Jurisdiction EJ CIP DPH Score Rank Cost

Hadley 607886 RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 47 FROM COMINS 0 16 (2.88) 39 $ Municipal N N DRIVE TO OLD RIVER DRIVE, INCLUDES CULVERT REPLACEMENT 2,100,000 AT RUSSELVILLE BROOK Hadley 606547 PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT 2 LOCATIONS ALONG 0 14.5 40 $ MassDOT N ROUTE 9 NEAR WEST ST 134,600 N Hatfield 608553 HATFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTES 5 &10, 0 6.5 45 $ MassDOT FROM 350 FEET NORTH OF CHURCH AVE TO THE WHATELY TOWN 3,124,760 LINE (3.2 MILES) N Holland 608727 HOLLAND- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON BRIMFIELD 0 27.5 31 $ Municipal N ROAD, FROM WALES ROAD TO STURBRIDGE STREET (0.9 MILES - 1,051,476 PHASE II) 2022 STP Holyoke 606450 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 INTERSECTIONS ALONG HIGH 25 63.0 6 $ Pending Yes Municipal Y N / SW & MAPLE STREETS ($4,789,307 in statewide funding) 9,152,450 CMAQ Holyoke 609065 RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON CABOT STREET AND 0 53.5 10 $ Municipal N RACE STREET (CENTER CITY CONNECTOR) 5,125,070 2023 SW Holyoke 606156 RECONSTRUCTION OF I-91 INTERCHANGE 17 & ROUTE 141 0 53.0 11 $ Pending Yes MassDOT Y N 6,013,740 2022 SW Holyoke / West 604209 REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 5 (RIVERDALE ROAD), FROM I-91 25 49 14 $ Pending Yes MassDOt Y N Springfield (INTERCHANGE 13) TO MAIN STREET IN HOLYOKE & FROM ELM 11,075,240 STREET TO NORTH ELM STREET IN WEST SPRINGFIELD (3.2 MILES) Longmeadow 607430 RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON LONGMEADOW STREET 0/25 44.5 16 $ Municipal N N (ROUTE 5), FROM THE CT S.L. TO CONVERSE STREET (2.88 MILES) 2,394,860 2024 Longmeadow / 608881 RESURFACING AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON 0 57.5 9 $ Municipal N Springfield LONGMEADOW STREET (ROUTE 5) AND CONVERSE STREET (0.84 5,228,168 MILES) 2020 Northampton 608236 NORTHAMPTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMON ROAD, FROM PS&E 66.5 4 $ Pending Yes MassDOT Y Y ROUTE 9 TO ROUTE 5, INCLUDES DRAINAGE SYSTEM REPAIRS & 10,043,653 SLOPE STABILIZATION AT THE NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL 2020 Northampton 607502 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING STREET, NORTH STREET 25 65.0 5 $ Pending Municipal Y Y & SUMMER STREET AND AT KING STREET & FINN STREET 3,384,309 Northampton 605048 IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 5 (MOUNT TOM ROAD) - FROM BRIDGE 25 40.0 22 $ MassDOT Y N E-5-4 OVER THE MANHAN RIVER TO 850' SOUTH OF I-91 NB EXIT 18 1,923,075 RAMP (0.85 MILES) Northampton 609286 NORTHAMPTON- DOWNTOWN COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR 0 67.5 3 $ Pending Municipal N AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) 7,654,605 2021 SW Northampton 608413 NORTHAMPTON- ROCKY HILL GREENWAY MULTI-USE TRAIL, 25 34.0 14 $ Pending Municipal FROM THE MANHAN RAIL TRAIL TO ROCKY HILL ROAD (0.4 780,794 MILES) 2020 Northampton PV0001 NORTHAMPTON, AMHERST, CHICOPPE, EASTHAMPTON, HADLEY, Contract 35.5 12 $ Pending HOLYOKE, SOUTH HADLEY, SPRINGFIELD, and WEST SPRINGFIELD: 1,210,000 ValleyBike share (phase II) Palmer 601504 RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 32, FROM 765 FT. SOUTH OF 0 23.0 34 $ MassDOT N N STIMSON STREET TO 1/2 MILES SOUTH OF RIVER STREET (PHASE I) 6,134,080 (1.63 MILES) Palmer 607372 PALMER- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 32, FROM 1/2 MILE SOUTH 0 23.0 34 $ MassDOT N N OF RIVER STREET TO THE WARE T.L. (PHASE II) (2.1 MILES) 8,326,770 Russell 608945 RUSSELL- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 0 14.0 41 $ No No MassDOT 6,500,000 D1

RTP Appendix

150

Draft TIP Municipality SID Project Name and Description Design TEC TEC Estimated CMAQ HSIP Jurisdiction EJ CIP DPH Score Rank Cost 2020 SW South Hadley 608473 SOUTH HADLEY- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON RTE 116 25 43.5 17 $5,885,003 MassDOT N South Hadley 608785 MAIN STREET ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 0 38.5 24 $3,089,720 Municipal N Southampton 604653 REHABILITATION OF EAST STREET - FROM COLLEGE HIGHWAY 25 31.5 27 $ Municipal N N EASTERLY TO COUNTY ROAD (2.6 MILES) 5,022,200 2022 SW Southampton 607823 SOUTHAMPTON- GREENWAY RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM 0 19.5 18 $ Pending Municipal COLEMAN ROAD TO ROUTE 10 (3.5 MILES) 6,080,722 Southwick 606141 RECONSTRUCTION OF FEEDING HILLS ROAD (ROUTE 57), FROM 0 42.5 18 $ Municipal N N COLLEGE HIGHWAY TO THE AGAWAM T.L 4,080,000 Southwick 604155 RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 10/202, COLLEGE 0 19.5 36 $ MassDOT N N HIGHWAY (NORTHERLY SECTION) FROM THE 3,600,000 WESTFIELD/SOUTHWICK T.L. TO TANNERY ROAD (1.4 MILES) 2024 Springfield 608717 SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVENUE AT 25 70.5 1 $ Yes Municipal N DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X") 10,062,663 2021 Springfield 608782 SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT COTTAGE 25 46.5 15 $ Yes Municipal N STREET, ROBBINS ROAD AND INDUSTRY AVE 2,748,386 2020 Springfield 608718 SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT BERKSHIRE 25 41.5 20 $ Yes Municipal 20- AVENUE, COTTAGE AND HARVEY STREETS 2,280,751 Mar 2020 SW Springfield 608560 IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT TAPLEY STREET 25 46 $1,589,420 MassDOT N 2021 SW Springfield 608565 IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT ST. JAMES 0 47 $ MassDOT BOULEVARD AND CAREW STREET 2,400,000 N 2022 SW Springfield 608157 SPRINGFIELD- MCKNIGHT COMMUNITY TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, 0 36.5 11 $ Pending Municipal FROM ARMORY STREET TO HAYDEN AVENUE (1.5 MILES) 4,300,000 2024 Wales 608163 WALES- RECONSTRUCTION & IMPROVEMENTS ON MONSON ROAD, 25 39.5 23 $ Municipal N FROM THE MONSON T.L. TO REED HILL ROAD (1.5 MILES) 3,737,346 Wales 605669 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON 0 9.0 43 $ MassDOT N ROUTE 19 312,500 N 2022/2023 West Springfield 608374 RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE (ROUTE 147), FROM 25 70.0 2 $ Pending Yes Municipal N COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE ROTARY (1.4 MILES) 22,545,121 West Springfield 604746 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-21-006, CSX RAILROAD OVER UNION 0 21.0 35 $ MassDOT Y N STREET 12,403,054 2021 Westfield 607773 WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20, 25 52.5 12 $ Yes Municipal Y N COURT STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH 8,153,565 STREET/MILL STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II) Eastern Section 2021 SW Westfield 608487 WESTFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 10 0 29 29 $ MassDOT N AND 202 2,760,000 Westfield 608073 WESTFIELD- WESTFIELD RIVER LEVEE MULTI-USE PATH 0 36 13 $ Pending Municipal CONSTRUCTION, FROM CONGRESS STREET TO WILLIAMS RIDING 4,801,730 WAY (NEAR MEADOW STREET) (2 MILES) 2021 SW Wilbraham 608489 WILBRAHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 0 36.0 25 $ MassDOT N 9,441,500 Williamsburg 607231 RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGH AND MOUNTAIN STREET 25 18.0 37 $ Municipal N N 7,033,957 Williamsburg 608787 WILLIAMSBURG- CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MILL RIVER 0 29.0 17 $ Pending Municipal GREENWAY" SHARED USE PATH 14,400,000 2024 Worthington 609287 ROUTE 143 RECONSTRUCTION (PHASE II) PERU TOWN LINE TO 75 41.0 21 $ Municipal N Y COLD STREET 8,584,000 61 Total Projects $ 342,132,443

RTP Appendix

151